Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

Roughly 25 years, somewhere over 250 Rita winners and maaaybe ten deserved the win?

Harsh.

I guess I should go back to work and keep writing my literary equivilent of paint my numbers.

Personally, I think the RITAs are much more legitimate than the Academy Awards. The Oscars are and have always been deliberately meant as a publicity scheme. They exist not to award the best movies of the year but primarily to increase box office for the major studios. In fact, until some time during the Second World War, they were controlled by Louis B. Mayer, who made sure MGM movies got the lion’s share of the awards. Sure, there are ‘artsy’ awards like those for the documentaries and short-subject films, but that’s to make the Academy look prestigious.

The Pulitzers, Nebulas, Hugos, and even the RITAs were legitimately created to first and foremost reward talent, even if publicity was a secondary reason. They all deserve much more respect than the Oscars. (And in fact so do the Emmys, which were originally envisioned as technical awards.)

The Ritas have too many categories.  Or rather, it has no blockbuster category like the Best Picture of the Year.  Think about it, movies, contemporary or historical or sf/f, 90 minutes or 180 minutes, religious or borderline erotica, they all have to compete against each other to be Best Picture of the Year.

I think RWA should have a best romance of the year award.  That would help. And carry more prestige than saying you are the winner in the short historical category which is exactly how different from a long historical?

That said, I’m not turning down a Rita for best short historical romance, which I should be getting in 2008.  Right?  Right.

Candy:  you rock.

What I understand about the RITA is this: 

Entrants have to pay to have their books considered, so there’s already a significant element of self-selection.  This may also account for why some established authors win books that seem comparatively weaker (so with you on the Worth Any Price eval—although it wasn’t as low a point as Again the Magic.  Oy, that book hurt to read).

Folks over at RTB insist there is not general criteria by which books are judged (outside of eligibility to actually compete within a category).  Of course, the Pulitzer juries don’t have written guidelines either, but perhaps there’s a common starting point there that doesn’t exist in RITA judging?

IMO there is a serious tension in Romance between the emotional impact of a book and larger issues of craft when it comes to evaluating books.  Like, if a book doesn’t work as a Romance for some readers, it’s not a great book, no matter how skilled a work it might be.  While clearly Romance has a certain emotional element to its evaluation that perhaps is unique to the genre, I don’t think that excludes a stronger focus on the *craft* of writing Romance (in fact, I would argue the opposite is true).  It’s one thing for a reviewer to say that a book was well-written but not romantic for him/her, but is that a legitimate basis for evaluation in a contest that’s supposed to reward the “best” in the genre? 

Candy, you’ve gone and hurt Nora’s feelings. Now maybe she won’t come and play at the Bitchery, and that will make me sad. Oh dear!

Although I suspect Roberts was simply trying to suggest that Candy was engaging in over-generalization and hyperbole, my first thought when I read her comment was, “Wow, that puts Candy in an uncomfortable position, where she now has to decide whether to reassure Roberts, and what are the implications of that, yada yada yada.”  Of course, I’m working on a project on what constitutes torture in the “War on Terror,” so I’m feeling particularly cynical right now.

Ditto darling.

We love you Nora!!

The Windflower…yum, must be time for a re-read.

Shit hasn’t been thoroughly stirred here lately, so here I go and stir it with a vengeance.

Heh, I didn’t even realize I made an appropriate, if cheesy, little pun there.

Carol Irvin, whom I don’t know except for her posts on AAR ATBF a couple of weeks ago (apparently she was a reviewer there years ago), was talking about how the RITAs get no mainstream respect, whereas even the HUGO has now crossed over to mainstream recognition.  I wish I could recall the sum of her arguments, because she was very articulate on the matter, and I didn’t really have the same context in which to understand the significance of what she was saying until these conversations.  It was related to how the awards are chosen, how nominees are selected, and the overall quality of books in the genre, but beyond that . . . well the only thing beyond at this point is some stuff about the Geneva conventions, so that’s probably irrelevant.  Anyway, maybe someone else can pick up the point or can remember the argument as Irvin presented it.

Somehow, I feel compelled to go OT here & announce that I happen to be one of those folks who like Thomas Kinkade’s works.  Of course,I’d like them even better if they were done on black velvet….

I think the biggest problem with the RITAs is that they’re very much like the homecoming court… who is the most popular among the authors judging, not who neccessarily is the best.  I can say this now—because I entered this year but nothing has been announced—without sounding like sour grapes.  But since all the unpublished contests require you to submit anonymously, the writer holding your entry might not remember you’re the person who vomitted on them at conference last year.  Not so with the RITAs.

I mean, honestly, if you’re judging the RITAs and the OMG BESTEST WRITER EVAH according to sales and general fame is the entrant you end up judging, are you going to have the cajones to put on record that you didn’t like their book?  Similarly, if you’re holding a book by an author who is getting more attention at your publisher than you are, are you going to be objective?

It just seems like this endless spiral of who-is-prettier-than-who.  That’s why the lackluster books show up as being absolutely the best of the best.

These sort of discussions about the Romance world kind of make me glad that I write lesbian romance and therefore have no chance of ever winning one of these contests.

“One of the reasons given is that “the RITA is the Oscar or Pulitzer Prize of romances novels.” “
1. Did she say “romances novels” or did you? If she did, I’d say she undercut her argument right there. If you can’t even properly use English grammar and spelling in your argument that the RITAs deserve respect…well, need I say more?

2. The Oscars are a popularity contest and nothing more. There were far better movies in 1996 (all of them) than The English Patient, yet it won Best Picture. As another writer pointed out above, the Academy selection process shuts out most movies, especially independent productions and overseas movies, from consideration. If the RITAs are truly like the Oscars, they deserve jeers and sneers, because they’re based on major authors kissing butt, not quality.

3. Pulitzer? Please. I love romance novels. I really do. And I know some of them address real-world, serious issues like spousal abuse. But they aren’t anything close to the world-changing effects that the winners of the Pulitzers have. Mostly, even the most serious romance novel is entertainment first and everything else last. Period. Nothing wrong with that. But I don’t want to see us make the mistake that some people do when they defend an often-maligned genre and say it can cure AIDS and make julienne fries when it’s obvious that it can’t. That’ll just hold romances and romance readers up to more ridicule than we already get.

4. I just recommended Miss Wonderful and Lord Perfect by Loretta Chase to my rather serious mainstream reading mother. It’s the first known “please, read a romance” effort I’ve ever made, and I hope it proves successful.

As a member of the Board of Directors of RWA, as well as a RITA winner, I have zero objectivity when it comes to this blog post.  I will therefore refrain from comment.  But I will pose a question:

If one considers the RITA contest to be broken, how does one propose to fix it?  As a person who has some ability to wield the tools of repair, I would sincerely like to know.

You fix the RITAs by getting new judges.

I know…good luck. :-)

Please disregard my question.  This is not the venue to query for responses.
My apologies.

Ten out of fifty read I can buy. Ten out of fifty read that YOU felt deserved the award strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

My books aren’t everyone’s cuppa. But one day, Candy, one day the scales will fall from your eyes, and you will be mine.

As for comments on the entry and judging criteria. Any member of RWA can enter a book—doesn’t have to be their book. I can’t remember what the entry fee is, and I’m too lazy to look it up, but I’m thinking around $25. To qualify, the entered book has to meet the criteria—clearly outlined—for its category.

A couple of years ago I judged several books in the preliminary round. One of them was a cozy mystery. There was no romantic relationship in it. None. The female protagonist solved a mystery. No sexual tension with anyone, no smoochies, no romantic overtones. Nothing. It was a competent book. It was not a Romance. It didn’t meet the criteria. Should I have judged it on its merits as a cozy mystery? I don’t think so. I was judging a contest for Romance novels for an award given by RWA. Even if it had been entered in the Strong Romantic Elements category—which it wasn’t—it wouldn’t have fit.

There has to be criteria.

Lastly, I believe Candy can handle a comment from me without sweating about reassurance. Just as I can handle one from her. We’re both grown-ups.

Of course, I’m older and wiser, and the time will come when I’m not only her cuppa, but she guzzles me like a wino guzzles Run, Walk and Lie Down.

~I mean, honestly, if you’re judging the RITAs and the OMG BESTEST WRITER EVAH according to sales and general fame is the entrant you end up judging, are you going to have the cajones to put on record that you didn’t like their book?  Similarly, if you’re holding a book by an author who is getting more attention at your publisher than you are, are you going to be objective?~

If you can’t, you shouldn’t judge.

The entrants don’t know who’s judging their entry. Why would it take cajones to judge a book—by anyone—on its merits without worrying about the author’s fame and sales?

I don’t get that.

Entrants who also judge don’t judge in any category in which they’re entered. Obviously that could lead to stickiness.

I’ve lost plenty of times, and since—to the best of my knowledge—I’ve never booted on anyone at a conference, I believe there are many who are able to judge fairly. Though, of course, they were wrong whenever I didn’t win.

Let me just say, Candy, dear, LaNora is the best storyteller in the genre.  If you’d get over your apparent squickie sticky amour for historicals you’d know that.  Ok to be nice, our taste in romance is completely opposite.  Even Sarah’s taste.  I haven’t read Windflower since the 80’s, but I distinctly remember throwing it against the wall, thinking, bad, bad, bad, caca, caca, oooh, yuckie, or maybe even less polite thougts.  First romance I tried outside of Georgette Heyer, Mary Stewart or Jane Aiken Hodge.  The comparison was dismal, I assure you.  I agree that the overabundance of categories makes the RITA useless as a vehicle to legitimize romance for the larger public.  I mean historical inspirational, inspirational history, not-so-romantic romance, too romantic romance.  Don’t give a frick personally.  But if they went to top romance of the year, would LaNora win every year as she is clearly the best, or be like Meryl Streep, who seldom wins because she is so much better than the average Hollow-wood hack?  As for the Hugo and the Nebula, I only read the novels that win BOTH, like Lois McMaster Bujold.  I know I’m only a doctor, but I did major in lit in college, so I read all those famous guys too—like Rousseau in the original French.  But with far less enjoyment than my romance.

IMO there is a serious tension in Romance between the emotional impact of a book and larger issues of craft when it comes to evaluating books.  Like, if a book doesn’t work as a Romance for some readers, it’s not a great book, no matter how skilled a work it might be.

This is where the rubber meets the road, as far as I’m concerned.

A week ago, I stumbled into this conversation over on the Juno blog (check the comments for the important part):

http://juno-books.com/blog/?p=118

So long as a certain segment of the reading population—and I have no idea how large or small that segment is, but I harbor grave fears—buys a “feeling” instead of a story, we’ll always be marginalized in terms of artistic merit. We can hold as many award ceremonies as we like, natter on about craft ‘til the cows come home, but to some, we’ll always be literary Prozac. Emo porn. Crack disguised as ink on paper.

Should we discontinue the Ritas because of it? Nah. But neither should we kid ourselves, because while the folks judging the contest—being authors themselves—may have an elevated appreciation for craft, they began as romance readers and are likely looking just as hard for that “glow” as the next Borders and B&N browser.

Is that a bad thing? I dunno. But it’s a thing.

Another half of a thought.  Sci-Fi is becoming more acceptable, i.e. less embarrassing to admit aloud that one reads it, because of the ascendancy of the geek.  It is now ok to be a geek.  Women are finally on the ascendant as well—a female speaker of the House, a legitimate candidate for President who is demonstrably XX in chromosomal make-up.  Maybe the RITA’s should go to Best Romance of the year.  We would have to have a fan side award too—like the Hugos and the Nebulas—one author voted, one more popular.  Maybe romance readers (OMG, maybe even romance writers) would finally get a little respect.

There used to be a Best Romance of the Year (or whatever it was called).  It was discontinued for lack of voting participation in the final round (I believe).

Anyone could nominate the books to be considered, so oftentimes RWA chapters would “encourage” their membership to submit a title by one of their members, making sure it hit the top ten and then made the final cut for the full membership vote.

As for making a Best Romance of the Year, I would put out there that it would be sticky to say the least. Romance is the most genreized (yes I’m making up words, you can’t stop me!) of all the genres! And there is a lot of elitism among(st) it’s readers:
“I’ll read historicals but I won’t touch that vampire crap.” or ” Prefer to stay in the 21st century when I read all the flubs in historicals it makes me crazy.”
So I can tell you for certain if RWA gave a RITA to saaaaay a Paranormal for BEST of 2008 can you imagine the bitching/whining/knashing of teeth that would insue?  I think it’s a good idea to keep the RITA’s the way they are.
I am I right? or should I cut back on the Diet Coke?

Lastly, I believe Candy can handle a comment from me without sweating about reassurance. Just as I can handle one from her. We’re both grown-ups.

Okay, I’ll admit that my first thoughts weren’t *exactly* as I posted them, because I wasn’t really worried about Candy’s ability to handle anything.

So long as a certain segment of the reading population—and I have no idea how large or small that segment is, but I harbor grave fears—buys a “feeling” instead of a story, we’ll always be marginalized in terms of artistic merit.
[...]
Should we discontinue the Ritas because of it? Nah. But neither should we kid ourselves, because while the folks judging the contest—being authors themselves—may have an elevated appreciation for craft, they began as romance readers and are likely looking just as hard for that “glow” as the next Borders and B&N browser.

I got the impression on the RtB blog that books are basically judged like this for the RITA.  I also get the impression that “craft” is limited to the basic rules of fiction writing, and is not seen as broadly inclusive of all the skills that converge in a masterful book.

One person pointed out that she doesn’t “critique” books in the RITA judging as she does unpublished contest submissions.  As only one reader who has no desire to write Romance, I find that counterintuitive.  Not that the bar for publication shouldn’t be set high—as someone else over there pointed, out, it seems that everyone wants to or thinks they can write a Romance novel.  But if the RITAs are supposed to award excellence or determine the best of the genre (and I think Sarah has a good point about judging within one year’s offerings rather than an overall genre best), why isn’t “critique” part of the evaluation process? 

Although I am very much in agreement with your analysis here, I’m not fully convinced that it’s those readers who crave that “feeling” who ultimately determine the level of respect Romance gets, because that “glow” can exist just as easily in a well-written book as a weaker offering.  But if publishers don’t value and nurture authors as craftspeople, and if editors are continually shortening word count and determining that readers want less heft, and if copyeditors are so overburdened or whatever it is they are to keep from vetting books adequately, then that “glow” is the only criteria loyal genre readers can count on—and Romance readers seem incredibly genre loyal. 

Someone on Dear Author commented recently (after the Celebrate Romance event) that there’s something called the “young editor” syndrome, in which many editors are young and relatively inexperienced, and they believe that readers only want shorter (less attention span—no kidding!) and lighter books.  And apparently they value feedback directly from readers rather than through authors.  Sadly and ironically, though, editors seem to be the most insulated from direct reader feedback, even though it sounds like they need to be reached most immediately.  Then there’s the whole issue that Karen Templeton pointed to about how many big publishing houses use Romance as their “cash cow” to finance riskier, less commercially successful literary ventures—which to me translates to innovation everywhere but where it’s needed most.

So after hearing all that, I’m even more appreciative of the handful of wonderful reads I had this past year, from Pam Rosenthal’s The Slightest Provocation to Meljean Brook’s Demon Angel, to Shana Abe’s The Smoke Thief, etc.  I’m hoping that the more readers talk up these less run-of-the-mill reads, the more people will read them, etc. etc. etc.  And I’m increasingly turning to ebooks, where I’m assured the boundaries are being more routinely pushed.

So long as a certain segment of the reading population [...] buys a “feeling” instead of a story, we’ll always be marginalized in terms of artistic merit. We can hold as many award ceremonies as we like, natter on about craft ‘til the cows come home, but to some, we’ll always be literary Prozac. Emo porn. Crack disguised as ink on paper.

We’ve been discussing the issue of quality in literature at Teach Me Tonight this week. We started by
taking a look at what people might actually mean when they call romance ‘porn’ (because they don’t all seem to be using the term in the same way).

Mostly, even the most serious romance novel is entertainment first and everything else last.

And then we got onto the issue of quality versus popularity. I do think there are some things a writer can get wrong and the most obvious is if they use the wrong words e.g. when characters are flaunting convention by flouting their charms in public. But a lot of other things are a matter of preference. I’m sure, looked at from a modern perspective, some literary classics are full of ‘info-dump’, they tell rather than show and they don’t ‘start when the action starts’.

My intuition would be that while readers may accept a romance which ‘works’ on an emotional level, they’re going to be even more pleased with a romance which works emotionally and also works in other areas. They may not immediately be aware of the mastery of craft or the layering of meaning etc, but it will contribute to the richness of their reading experience.

~Okay, I’ll admit that my first thoughts weren’t *exactly* as I posted them, because I wasn’t really worried about Candy’s ability to handle anything.~

Ooh, ouch. Well, you don’t have to worry about me either.

And next time, you can be right up front from the jump. I can handle that, too.

~Okay, I’ll admit that my first thoughts weren’t *exactly* as I posted them, because I wasn’t really worried about Candy’s ability to handle anything.~

And next time, you can be right up front from the jump. I can handle that, too.

To be honest, I was primarily focused on the implication that that Candy was incapable of responding, and I didn’t really think beyond that point in your latter comment.  In all frankness, my initial comment was in reaction to the combination of your comment and Sarah’s, and the way hers shaped how I read yours (and vice versa).  Actually, your initial comment surprised me more than anything else.

One person pointed out that she doesn’t “critique” books in the RITA judging as she does unpublished contest submissions.

Robin, I haven’t read the original post you’re referring to here, but what she probably means is that in the RITA contest judges only give points and don’t comment on the entries. In most RWA contests for unpubbed authors, by contrast, judges do both; sometimes they’re even encouraged to make comments in the margins of the excerpts themselves.

Candy incapable of responding? Candy? Top snarky uber-bitch Candy might be incapable of making a response to me? You can’t be serious.

I don’t know why you were surprised by my initial response, as Candy herself said she miss-blogged—if that’s a term. (No cookies for Candy)And my response to her response seems to have cleared all that up nicely.

Robin, be straight. You indicated that you felt I couldn’t handle Candy’s comment. Then it’s initial comments and Sarah’s comment and latter comments. There’s really no need for all the backpeddling. It’s the Smart Bitches blog. You took a flick at me. I flicked back.

We’re all Bitches here. We can all handle it.

what she probably means is that in the RITA contest judges only give points and don’t comment on the entries.

You may be right, Sandra.  Here’s what she (Mary Stella) said exactly:

I’ve only been eligible to judge in the Ritas for a couple of years. I’ve been a romance reader for over 30 years. For me, being fair and impartial means reading the books as a reader, reacting to them with my heart and my head. I’m not analyzing them to give a critique, like I am if I judge a writing contest for not-yet-published authors and am asked to comment on things like POV, pacing, characterization, etc.

Now I don’t know this person, so I can’t discern her exact meaning here, but I connected to the “I’m not analyzing” language and assumed she meant internally.  But it could be as you say.

This whole discussion really has me thinking about how as much as I enjoy a number of Romance novels, I don’t know how many live up to what I have as an ideal of “excellence” in the form of an award.  I don’t know whether that has to do with my own assumptions about *other* awards in other media, or about Romance in general, or about specific books.  Maybe some of everything.  But since Samuel’s original post was on why “readers should care about the RITAs,” I’m pretty sure my reasons for doing so would be different than many others, readers and authors included. 

I’ve been following the conversations on Teach Me Tonight about this issue, and at the very least, I think our conflicts over the *mission* of Romance fiction informs some of the dissent around Samuel’s position.  Is it entertainment or art or both?  What constitutes excellence in a book, and what role does emotional impact play (which is both highly subjective and central to reader expectations of the genre)?  Does Romance’s sheer size and profitability impair more traditional measures of literary quality?  Etc., etc., etc.

Candy incapable of responding? Candy? Top snarky uber-bitch Candy might be incapable of making a response to me? You can’t be serious.

Huh?  Now you’ve totally lost me, because I wasn’t the one to make that assertion.  Ever.  But I didn’t want to let your inference (authentic or not) stand as my implication.  And it wasn’t just your comment to which I initially responded—or reacted, for that matter. I think I’ve shown, time and time again, that I can stand up directly to you and to anything you’ve got to dish out.  From where I stand, I haven’t tried to backpedal one little bit, either from what I have said in my comments or what I have chosen not to say.  Even if I’ve cleaned some of it up for public expression.

“Wow, that puts Candy in an uncomfortable position, where she now has to decide whether to reassure Roberts, and what are the implications of that, yada yada yada.”

~To be honest, I was primarily focused on the implication that that Candy was incapable of responding, and I didn’t really think beyond that point in your latter comment. ~

Your comments. Please show mine where I implicated Candy or anyone else was incapable of responding to me. Because as I’m reading this you made the implication.

Please show mine where I implicated Candy or anyone else was incapable of responding to me.

Your response to my comment:  “Lastly, I believe Candy can handle a comment from me without sweating about reassurance.”

If that’s what you took from my comment, then I wanted to make damn sure no one else did.  I don’t care how capable someone is of responding—whether she should be in that position is another thing, IMO, and the intended point of my comment (and not just for Candy’s sake, but for other potential commenters, as well).  Especially since—again—yours was not the only comment to which I was reacting.  That I could not discern whether Sarah was entirely serious led me to split the difference by responding to *her* comment in reference to *yours*.

Let me ask a question here, to any who feel inclined to answer. If I—or any other writer—disagree with a reader here, or one of the big bitches, is reassurance required—or else implications may ensue? If one of the readers here—or one of big bitches—states that my work (or another writer who frequents here) isn’t to her taste, doesn’t like my books or feels they’re crappy, and I respond, does it follow the original commentator’s in a tough spot?

I’ve never felt that way here, which is one of the reasons I enjoy this site.

And what ARE the implications? I go away? I say I don’t like that big bitch meanie and go elsewhere to play? Will, do you think, this action have any effect on this site—which, seems to me, got along fine before I stumbled in the door.

I admit—straight out—it pisses me off that it’s implied I can’t speak my mind to Candy or anyone here—particularly when it’s spoken without viciousness—as any other poster can. That by doing so I’ve put another poster in ‘an uncomfortable position’.

If this is the case, then I’ll apologize, as I’ve obviously misunderstood how things run here.

Please show mine where I implicated Candy or anyone else was incapable of responding to me.

Your response to my comment:  “Lastly, I believe Candy can handle a comment from me without sweating about reassurance.”

All this says is that I believed Candy fully capable of commenting.

You made the implication, Robin. Your words. You said I’d put Candy in an uncomfortable position. Whether it was in response to me or to Sarah, or a combination of both, the statement was yours alone. And I responded to it.

There were plenty of years when the Hugo award did not go to what many SF fans considered the best of the best. The Hugos are voted by the members of the World SF Society (WSFS). One joins WSFS by buying an attending or supporting membership for that year’s Worldcon.  That means, for example, that a Worldcon in Canada may find the awards more skewed to Canadian writers since more Canadian fans are likely to be members that year.

The Nebulas are voted by the members of SFWA, so some readers consider them a better indication of quality.  However, a Hugo and Nebula award winning author told me once he’d rather have a Hugo, since it comes from his readers rather than his peers, and he believes that’s a better award.

Please show mine where I implicated Candy or anyone else was incapable of responding to me.

Okay, I give up.  My only concern was that no one thought *I* made that implication based on your response to my comment.  I can’t clarify this any further.

You said I’d put Candy in an uncomfortable position.

Yup.  That was, and remains *my* opinion—whether, by the way, she felt that way or not.  Yeah, *I* thought your comment came across in part as an invitation for reassurance (especially since Candy’s comment wasn’t directed at you).  And in my opinion, the comment felt more like an invitation than a retort to Candy’s hyperbolic point—whether or not you meant it that way.  And I probably wouldn’t have voiced *my* opinion if it weren’t for Sarah’s comment, which, it seems to me, was ALSO an invitation for reassurance—whether she meant it that way or not. Or whether Candy took EITHER comment that way. 

So I thought both comments were invitations for reassurance—why is than an indictment of your right (or anyone’s) to respond to anyone else here?  That you had every right to call Candy on what you thought was an unfair point, I have absolutely no doubt or complaint.  And you can do so however you want.  But yeah, the two comments we’ve been discussing struck me—ME—a certain way.  I’m sure lots of other people didn’t take them that way.  Frankly, I thought I was pretty gentle in my comment, both to you and Sarah.  Because I wasn’t trying to chill anyone’s speech; on the contrary, it was the thought of chilled speech that provoked my comment.

Well, this is interesting. 

Candy pointed out that there have been a lot of winners she thought were mediocre or worse.  Right there with you, Candy.  But how are you going to fix that?  Somebody said by getting better judges.  The Ritas are already judged by published authors, but we need a LOT of judges because the contest is freaking huge, so coming up with more stringent requirements for judges (and what would those be?) would just shut the contest down.  There are five judges in the first round and five in the last so that’s ten different published authors who score and rank the books.  Of course it’s not a fail safe process, but given the problems inherent in finding enough judges, that’s a pretty good span. 

Do mediocre books get the prize?  All the time.  But that’s my mediocre, possibly not yours.  Plus any judging by committee is going to reward the more middle of the road. The romance genre is incredibly wide and even within the subgenres, reading tastes vary widely.  There are even some romantic comedy readers who can’t abide my books.  I find this inexplicable, but hey, it happens. 

So the books that get the nominations are the ones that pleased ten judges enough to make high scores and rankings, without annoying anybody.  That’s going to mean that nothing too cutting edge wins a Rita. (I’m not surprised that the most traditional romance I ever wrote is the single title that won for me.)  Or an Oscar or a Grammy or an Emmy. But what’s the alternative?  Have one judge read 800 single title romances and make the call?  All that’s going to get you (assuming it was possible) is a reflection of the tastes of one person. 

Add to that the fact that all judging of creative work is subjective, and no award is going to make everybody happy.

What interests me is that giving awards to less than stellar entries hasn’t stopped the Oscars or the Edgars or any of the other awards from becoming influential in those fields.  The Rita appears to be the only one that doesn’t have a major impact on careers, doesn’t cause a spike in sales.  Which was Candy’s original argument.

So if it’s not the fact that so many Rita winners are mediocre since the other awards often reward the mediocre, too, what is it? 

I think it’s the breadth of the genre.  Too many different kinds of books with too many different kinds of readers to be able to draw everybody to buy one book the way the Best Oscar draws people to one movie.  The old Ten Best Romances of Whatever Year did boost sales because bookstores used to feature those, but there are so many Rita categories that they don’t do the same for the Ritas.

I think fewer categories would be a big step toward making it easy for bookseller and librarians to showcase the titles and journalists to write about it, especially giving a Best Book of the Year.  But I think it comes down to what we want the Ritas for.  If we want them to have a significant impact on careers, then we revamp the contest to get that impact.  But if we want to make the best effort we can to reward all the different genres in RWA, the breadth of the industry, if they’re for us, not for increasing sales, then what we’ve got is probably our best system.  And I think that’s what they were designed for, for our party, not for commercial purposes. 

I think it’s impossible to compare the Ritas to any other award just because no other award has to cover so many titles, let alone so many kinds of titles.  Unless we’re willing to ignore that, the Ritas aren’t going to have an impact.  I think.

Darlene, Thanks for the clarification on the Hugos and the Nebulas, me I’m just a fan.  And Miri, you’re so right, we can’t get any respect if we read “Vampires in Lurve.”  Robin, I notice when you post that you are very thoughtful (both types of thoughtful—kind and also showing that you thought your comments through).  Candy is gonna be a lawyer, she can, I am sure, bend with fate’s little slings and arrows.  But as a fan and only a fan, I love that authors post here, including Nora.  I enjoy reading what they think of their covers.  I smacked a book (not knowing the author posts here) and she smacked me back.  My only thought was, “Cool, I got snarked by somebody who is published!”  I don’t like any of the books that Candy and Sarah seem to like, but I enjoy their unique perspectives.  If folks have to start being sweet all the time at Smart Bitches, the only titties that will be left will be the titty-fingered approach we’ll have to take with each other.  And for that I can go to Running with Quills.  I will admit that I’ve only read a few RITA winners—mostly Noras—but I liked the ones I read.  Still don’t give a frick about the RITA’s however because the categories are too nitpicky for me—sorry Stef.

The Nebulas are voted by the members of SFWA, so some readers consider them a better indication of quality.  However, a Hugo and Nebula award winning author told me once he’d rather have a Hugo, since it comes from his readers rather than his peers, and he believes that’s a better award.

I always get a kick out of celebrities who accept a number of different awards, trying to explain how each one is their *favorite*.  I suppose when there are only two in a field, it’s easier to make a reliable choice! 

Your explanation reminded me that one of the things Irvin referred to was the Stoker awards, and, IIRC, how they boosted their status by nominating a more mainstream book.  I don’t have any idea if this would be a good or even workable strategy for the RITA—which more and more seems to me an award given by and for authors—but it may be an acknowledgment that other genres just have more cross-over appeal to begin with, inherently boosting the reputation of their awards.  As large as Romance is, it also seems somewhat insulated, at least in the main.

The Romantic Novelists’ Association has the Romantic Novel of the Year Award. It’s run rather differently from the Rita, as is explained on the page I linked to.

it may be an acknowledgment that other genres just have more cross-over appeal to begin with, inherently boosting the reputation of their awards

The RNA possibly already has more ‘cross-over appeal’ in that they aren’t so focussed on the HEA as is the RWA, but there is that RITA for a novel with romantic elements. I’m also not sure how influential the RNA awards are, though one would possibly have to take into account the fact that the RNA is nowhere near the size of the RWA, so that probably has an effect too.

Seems to me I always here a lot of dish around Oscar time about how the Academy always awards the safe movies, and Oh My God, how ignorant and plebian of them to leave out this movie or that. The Oscars are not cutting edge and neither are the Ritas.

Some of the authors that have been held up as Amazing (in this post and others) are just not amazing for me. Hell, my best friend and I seem to have the same taste, but I don’t agree with her favorites half the time. In other words, I don’t think the contest is broken. It’s just the nature of the beast. And, as you said Candy, if you have MORE in common with the tastes of mainstream sci-fi readers, it stands to reason that you’d be more in agreement on those awards. Doesn’t necessarily make them better, just better for you. And maybe that was the point of this whole damn thing!

Janny Crusie said:

That’s going to mean that nothing too cutting edge wins a Rita.

  Of course, the exception that proves the rule is Laura Kinsale’s Shadowheart.  Everyone was absolutely convinced that there was no way in hell that book would win anything.  As far as I remember, everyone was stunned it made the finals for its category.  And it won.  The strange, beautiful S/M romance that no one quite understood won.

But all in all, I think the middle-of-the-road analogy generally works.  I always feel like I should read more RITA winners, but just don’t have the time or energy.

Yeah, that would be JENNY Crusie.  I’m only, like, writing an article on Laura’s book on the woman.  ::sigh::

The thing I don’t get about the RITAs (and mind, I have only been eligible to judge them for two years, so my experience and sample space is small) is that five judges determine the finalists. Five. Each book is read by five judges, who each give it a score from 1 to 9, and then the top choices (only five, right?) are the finalists. Then, five *different* judges read the finalist books and give them another score between 1 and 9, and the top scorer wins.

Without wanting to take anything away from those ten judges, or the books they choose as finalists (not mine, but some friends of mine have made it), but that’s a small panel of experts to weigh in on what’s “the best” in a given year. You know some judges get books that are in subgenres they don’t especially like, and they grade accordingly. Some people have issues with certain things that just hamstring a book from page one for them, and they grade accordingly. Why are you getting middle of the road books winning? IMHO, because those are the books that can appeal the most to the most number of judges. That’s what a book needs to do to final, and then win.

So how can you improve it and make it mean more? I dunno. Every panel of judges has some selection problem associated with it. RWA puts subtle pressure on published authors to judge, but there are problems with that. Readers? Can you say “self-selected?” Reviewers? Which ones? It’s a puzzle…

I have to say, though, just as a reader and a shopper, I have never seen a bookseller/bookstore make a big deal (or any deal) of a book being a RITA winner.

I should qualify that “nothing too cutting edge wins” bit.  USUALLY nothing too cutting edge wins. 

And then Sarah gets my name wrong and Rich makes fun of my age.  Where’s the respect? 

I don’t think anybody at RWA thinks the Rita process is perfect.  And I know a committee just sent in a report recommending some changes, although I don’t know what they are or if they have a hope of going through.  But I would argue that ten judges is a pretty big panel, not statistically significant but still not three women with coffee cups and Danish saying, “Well, I don’t like the ones with oral sex, so they’re going down.”  So to speak. 

I’m kind of with Stef on this one.  If you don’t like it, identify the specific problems and come up with a better plan.  (Mine is fewer overlapping categories and add a gay/lesbian track.  But nobody ever listens to me.)

One thing that I have always found strange about the RITAs, compared to the Oscars or similar, is that writers in the same area are shut out of the judging. So a short contemp writer can’t judge those books, an inspirational writer can’t judge those books, etc. And this strikes me as strange because I have gotten emails from friends: “I have this historical book I’m supposed to be judging, I think there’s a major historical error in it; am I right? Should I mark it down? Does it matter?”

I would personally prefer to be able to vote on historicals (which I write) because I actually have experience in that area. “Is this a good paranormal romance?” I dunno, I was hoping for witches and wizards, zombies and vampires give me the creeps and I read this book with one eye closed. “Is this a good European historical?” OH, I KNOW something about that! And I don’t mind reading all the finalists, either! It doesn’t seem to me that objectivity would be any lesser, in the finalist round, because there’s a limited panel of books to choose from. “Which of these 5 books is the best? Check one only.” I can answer that.

Well, that’s my humble suggestion.

Something that always puzzled me was the pay to enter thing.  Last I heard there was a charge of $40 for a RWA member to nominate a book and $140 for a non RWA member.  The Nebula on the other hand don’t mention a charge in their rules and no one with a monetary interest in the book can nominate it.  There’s no entry fee for the Edgars.  So why does the RITAs have one?

If you don’t like it, identify the specific problems and come up with a better plan.

Is it logical, possible, desirable, or even wise to have specific criteria for judging beyond category guidelines?  Criteria that would apply to craft as well as emotional success of the novel?  For example: innovation in characterization, plot or theme; freshness of voice; mastery of generic components; internally consistent character development; emotional payoff; readability of prose;  compelling characterizations; contribution of secondary characters to overall purpose of the novel; artistic merit beyond basic elements of craftsmanship; appropriateness and consistency of tone; cooperation of character, plot, and theme; clarity of overall vision; contribution to the development of the genre.

There would likely be disagreement on how each book rated in each category, but at least judges would have some common ground and shared criteria.

Jennifer Crusie, Anne Stuart, Ruth Wind and Theresa Weir are some of my favorite authors, and they write contemporaries (Stuart’s written a few fun historicals, too).

Hmm, I haven’t read Weir or the contemporary version of Samuels(Wind), but I like the others on that list, so I think I’ll try.  Recommendations for their best books, Candy?

In regard to more “books we like,” I really enjoyed both of Caroline Linden’s historicals, in part, I think, because they were quiet books that made me care without a lot of pyrotechnics or adolescent behavior on the part of the protagonists. 

And while books under the Roberts name don’t work for me, I do have to say that I’ve really enjoyed the In Death books, at least most of the paperbacks (I really liked the last hardcover, but was ready to abandon the series before that).  You read more SF/F than I do, so you may not enjoy them as much as I have, but I really like Eve Dallas’s persistent defensive bitchiness, and there are some nifty gender role reversals between her and Roarke that are clever and innovative, IMO. If you endeavor to read more of her books, you might want to look there, although I don’t think any of them have won the RITA.

I believe—and I’ve never asked—that the entry fee is supposed to cover the expenses like the paperwork, the shipping the books to judges, etc. I don’t know how many entries there are in any given year, but I’d assume bunches—times five for the number of books each entrant sends in. A lot of books to log in, check, assign and ship out to the (I guess it would be) 70 judges, at least for the first round.

Could RWA suck up the expense? Sure. Should they? I don’t know. For 40 bucks, I don’t really care so much either way.

Judging in the category in which you’ve entered is asking for trouble. Seriously, while it’s nice to think people wouldn’t give their own book an edge, many others would be SURE they had. If some of the discussion here leans toward judges not being objective enough to read a book and judge it on its own merits, how much more grumbling would there be if their own books were tossed into their particular judging pool? Not saying judging their own, but judging their competition in the first round.

And why would a valid winner come out of that, if the opinion in valid winners don’t come out of it now?

Judges can request categories. The categories I’ll judge are down on my profile. Mostly I want category—I used to write them, so I get them, and I appreciate them. I don’t want to judge Inspirationals, for instance, so I don’t.

Craft plays a huge part in my personal judging process. Three of the seven I judged this year faired poorly with me because I found them badly crafted.

Does that make it perfect? Absolutely not. But it’s never going to be perfect.

I don’t do boards and committees so I don’t know how they determine the rules and procedures, or even how many times they’ve changed or defined those over the last couple decades. However much they fiddle and tweak, it’s not going to please everyone. And many members—and many readers—will always feel the best books didn’t win.

Anyway, it’s nice to see that old Janny Kruisie stop by.

~The thing is, I expect better from RITA winners in terms of my curve, because they’re supposed to be the best. And the thing is, when I don’t like a RITA winner, I expect it to at least be well-written, but disappointingly, it’s often not.~

Yes, it should be well-written. I’m assuming you’re talking about the writing itself—the structure, the language, blah blah and not your particular likes in style.

I don’t know how many Rita winners I’ve read over the years—and no possibly way I’m going to check the list and try to remember. But I certainly remember being baffled by some. Some because of my particular tastes, some because I didn’t find them well-crafted.

As I said before, craft is an essential part of my judging process. I think it should be in every judge’s. But who’s going to control that one?

And we’ve all read books that are beautifully crafted that sank for us for other reasons. It’s HARD to judge fairly and objectively, and to factor in all the elements. Even when you do, not everyone’s going to agree with your results.

We still think Nathaniel Hawthorne and George Eliot are fantastic, despite their slower pace, insanely huge sentences, info-dumpiness, etc. I don’t know of any scholars—or shit, any readers with even a modicum of education—who seriously attempt to judge the merits of Authors of Yore by modern standards and find them lacking solely based on that fact.

Well, in almost all cases that’s because they really are good. The pacing may not suit a modern reader, but they have an exciting plot, convincing characterisation, fascinating background (social, historical, political), interesting imagery, they don’t make grammar mistakes etc. But sometimes there’s also an element of the Emperor’s New Clothes syndrome. How many people are going to declare that something is badly written if they think that everyone else is sure it’s a Classic? Also, ‘Since the canon as a whole and survey courses in particular necessarily exclude so many individual works, those that remain often appear far more original and far more unique than they in fact are’ (Landow).

I can’t think of very many classics I think are badly written, but I’m not at all convinced by Catcher in the Rye. Admittedly my memories of it are very vague and date from when we were forced to read it at school, but from what I can recall it was written in a style I felt was distinctly unexciting and had a main character who did nothing of interest (to me). I suspect it must have resonated with someone (or a group of people) because they had an emotional connection with it, and they happened to be in a position to convince others that it was objectively Good but no-one is ever going to convince me that it’s a well-written novel. And that could well be because of my tastes, I admit that. In general I think that subjective factors play some part in the process which leads to some works being considered classics.

There are probably lots of women writers whose work should form part of the canon but who’ve been excluded and forgotten for the very non-objective reason that they were women and were writing about subjects that the literary elite didn’t think were Important: ‘The systematic exclusion of authors who belong to identified minorities (racial, gendered, economic) seems to be one of the hallmarks of canon formation’ (Hentschell). Nationality can also play a part. I’ve never read Hawthorne and hadn’t even heard of him until recently, and I wonder if that’s because he’s not considered such a major author in the UK? I suspect that there are many Great Authors who are considered much more Great in their own countries. If that’s the case then it would also tend to support my suggestion that there are subjective factors influencing decisions regarding what’s considered Good.

(Oh, and in case anyone’s wondering, I’m capitalising some words deliberately and I never guarantee that my posts will be typo-free.)

Re readers placing more emphasis on the emotional aspects of the book and not as much on the craft, could it not be that, in general, we’re not giving the author enough credit for *causing* that glow (through their craft)?

And if (returning to the Rita context) a judge had to choose between two books - the one with the yummy love story but some unfortunate stilted dialogue in some places or descriptive tags such as ‘her eyes were moonbeams’; and the one with the yummy love story as well as superior writing - why do we think there’ll be tension between which one to choose as award winner?

Final point: I wouldn’t know if I’ve read RITA books or not because the award is completely beneath my radar. I don’t know when ‘Rita season’ is; I don’t know what categories are up for awards, I know nothing about nothing (yay for the double negative). Romance blogland (or at least the parts I traverse) don’t seem to have much respect for it, but the RtB post and this one will certainly make me take more interest in it.

I do think though, that the lack of respect for the award seems to flow directly from a lack of respect not just for the judging process but the judges themselves. Because some think that being a published author is not qualification enough to judge the work of others. So, I see it as a problem bigger than the awards process and more linked to romance writing standards overall

~And if (returning to the Rita context) a judge had to choose between two books - the one with the yummy love story but some unfortunate stilted dialogue in some places or descriptive tags such as ‘her eyes were moonbeams’; and the one with the yummy love story as well as superior writing - why do we think there’ll be tension between which one to choose as award winner?~

I think the question might be that I have a yummy love story that has flaws re craft. And I have a technically well-written book that failed to engage me. I didn’t find it yummy. I wasn’t able to connect to the story or characters on an emotional level.

If this were the case, for me, I’d most likely go for the book with some flaws that sucked me in. However, if it had too many flaws, if it came off sloppy, then it would earn low marks from me.

For me, when judging a contest for Romance novels, I must be engaged by the characters and their relationship. For me, that’s the point—or the key. And that would be where personal preference, to some extent, is going to ooze in no matter how much you try to block it out.

But, in fact, I’m NOT going to be engaged if I find the writing itself clunky. It’s going to keep tossing me out.

“Re readers placing more emphasis on the emotional aspects of the book and not as much on the craft, could it not be that, in general, we’re not giving the author enough credit for *causing* that glow (through their craft)?”

This is a beautiful statement! Sentence structure, word choice and placement within the sentence, crafting of hooks—all these elements are the writer’s tools of manipulation. Even a period instead of a comma changes the way something is read—the pacing, emotions, etc. And it’s something I pay insane attention to when I write.

I don’t think there’s alot of reader awareness of this manipulation (such an ugly word, but I mean it in a good way, honest!)and there shouldn’t be! The minute someone is aware of these crafty mind-games, their powah is removed.

I’ve tipped my hand but I don’t care. It’s wonderful to have someone realize that *glow* isn’t accidental!

Quote: I think the question might be that I have a yummy love story that has flaws re craft. And I have a technically well-written book that failed to engage me. I didn’t find it yummy. I wasn’t able to connect to the story or characters on an emotional level.

I guess where I got confused is that I couldn’t/can’t see a book without a yummy love story even making the shortlist for the Best ‘Insert Romantic Sub-genre’ Book of the year. It’s failed the first hurdle.

Now what we, you, I, they consider ‘yummy love story’ is a whole ‘nother topic. But to even be considering a book that is superbly written but short on the emotional reader engagement wrt the characters? Isn’t that what a romance novel is supposed to be about?

That’s why people want to make the difference clear between, for e.g., a ‘paranormal romance’ and a ‘paranormal with romantic elements’. The former qualifies for a Rita; the latter doesn’t (shouldn’t?).

Ann - I’ve always given the majority credit to the author for giving me a ‘glow’. I don’t sit and dissect how they did it but am always happy that they got it done.

Just wanted to clarify one thing I said earlier:

Nora said, “Judging in the category in which you’ve entered is asking for trouble.” I see the argument against it, but I also think RWA should consider it in some form. As someone who’s written category, Nora Roberts’s opinion of category books is an expert opinion. My opinion of category books is, to say the least, amateur and woefully uninformed. I don’t read a lot of them, I’ve never written one. I just wish there were some way to help funnel the books more toward the ‘expert’ opinion. (And yes, I know we are allowed to choose which categories we want to judge. But we are also allowed to choose which categories we ENTER, and lots of books now cross boundaries. Is it a historical, or is it paranormal? Maybe even an inspirational? What’s the difference between long historical and short historical? You might win in one category and not even final in the other.)

As to professional jealousy/friendship skewing votes, I doubt it, not anymore than it already does. I’ve already gotten a book written by a good friend of mine, and I’ve only been judging the RITA for two years. Did it affect my score? No, I believe not, but some could certainly make a case that it did, and there wouldn’t be much I could do to disprove it.

~But to even be considering a book that is superbly written but short on the emotional reader engagement wrt the characters? Isn’t that what a romance novel is supposed to be about?~

Well, I certainly think so. But you can’t get around the fact that every reader (writer, reader, judge) has their own emotional engagement clicks. That’s why the process is, and always will be, subjective on some levels. Can’t get around it.

Candy said:if the RITAs advertised themselves as “The awards that reward the books that made us feel fuzziest” instead of “The awards that reward the books representing the best writing the genre had to offer,” I wouldn’t feel quite as compelled to poke at it.

The purpose of the award as stated in the contest rules is:  ”(...)to promote excellence in the romance genre by recognizing outstanding romance books and manuscripts.”

Obviously, some judges view that excellence as books that give them a fuzzy feeling, and others view that excellence as the best writing the genre has to offer.  What determines an outstanding romance book is going to vary from judge to judge since there is no call to judge based on any specific elements such as those Robin mentioned above (which are exactly how I do judge).

~Is it a historical, or is it paranormal? Maybe even an inspirational?~

Well, that would be for the entrant to decide. And once deciding, and entering in that category, the entrant wouldn’t judge that category. But if the book could have slotted into the other two choices as well, then presumably the entrant would be a good judge for either of those categories.

I’ve always signed up to judge a category I particularly like reading. Why would I subject myself (or the unfortunate entrants who got stuck with me) to reading types of books I don’t like, or don’t understand?

Personally, I know I’d feel uncomfortable judging books entered in the same category as mine. I’d be second-guessing myself constantly. Am I being fair, am I being objective? (But isn’t my book BETTER???) Bad angel, good angel. I’d sprain my neck in the process. It’s hard enough to be fair and objective. Toss in personal interest, my own Catholic guilt and I’d be a wreck.

I do think though, that the lack of respect for the award seems to flow directly from a lack of respect not just for the judging process but the judges themselves. Because some think that being a published author is not qualification enough to judge the work of others. So, I see it as a problem bigger than the awards process and more linked to romance writing standards overall

Is there an argument that being pubbed in romance isn’t enough of a qualification to judge? Because I don’t get that. We’re professionals in the industry. What other standard should there be? Professionals who aren’t so damned emotional and cuddly and undereducated? Professionals who also love to read and study the classics? I find the idea insulting.

I wouldn’t judge a category that I don’t read. And if someone chooses to enter their category book in the suspense contest, I’ll judge it against my idea of a good suspense. That’s the entrant’s choice, no skin off my back. And every single romance contest I’ve ever entered has a nominal contest fee to cover mailing, etc. Big fricken deal.

Or just what Nora said.  ;-)

Re: fuzzy feelings/emotional engagement.  Just as a for instance (and I’ll try not to misspell any important names here!):

I actively hunt for romances with alpha males.  I pretty much don’t care about the heroine.  Sure, I’d prefer the heroine to be a little feisty, a little in control of something, articulate and not TSTL.  But I’ve read books with heroines who *are* TSTL and loved them…because the hero engages me.  Can we say Jane Feather’s 18thC books?

So, do I adore the feelings that JR Ward’s male vampires make me feel?  You betcha.  Do I think the heroines are wet dishrags?  Most of the time (although rereading has changed my mind about Mary).  Will I be first in line to buy V’s book in October, no matter what I think of Ward’s ability to write women?  Absolutely.  Because it’s *V’s* book, the hero’s book, not the heroine’s.

And do books with super alpha-males trip other people’s rage switches like nobody’s business?  Sure they do.  Wallbangers for me are Desert Island Keepers for you.

I *don’t* like books that focus too much on the heroines, that spend too much time creating a female community of friends and relatives, that focus on the heroine’s journey to the “detriment” of the hero’s emotional journey into maturity and love.  So, no matter how brilliant the books are, they’re not going to engage me.  I’m not going to get a warm fuzzy feeling when reading it.  I read The Secret Life of Bees because I assigned it to my students.  I was bored senseless by it, even though I could see that it was brilliantly written.  Objectively, I could see why it spent so long on the NYT list, but I personally won’t read anything else by Sue Monk Kidd.

How would I grade JR Ward versus Patricia Williamson (assuming they were competing for something)?  I can technically tell that Williamson has better craft, better technique (and I adored her The Outsider), but Ward really makes me feel warm and fuzzy in all sorts of nice places.  I don’t think I could “objectively” grade which book by these two authors are “better” because I would have a hard time knowing what to grade FOR.

But then again, is Williamson’s craft and technique deemed “better” than Ward’s because it’s more “realistic”?  She does nhame her hheroes rheally wheird nhames, after all.  Okay, bad example.  Let’s go back to Jane Feather.  Or even Amanda Quick.  Their books raise an emotional response in me and I *know* that’s because I react to the alpha male hero giving in to love.  Williamson’s books, not so much, because she focuses on the heroine so much more.  Which is “better” FOR ME?

And I’m going to go on record as saying that I think Melville is a really bad writer.  *Technically* bad, as well as boring as fuck.  Can I understand why someone else might think he’s technically brilliant?  Yes, but I think they’re wrong.  Austen has received similar criticism—that her technical skill, her craft, is wanting—mostly because she only writes about the domestic.  That is, because for some people, she’s boring as fuck. 

That is, it’s not just that the warm fuzzies affect the way in which one particular reader reacts to a book, but the warm fuzzies can also dictate what a reader thinks of the book’s CRAFT, too.

I have no answers.  Just observations.  And Candy, do I think La Nora is “better” than Rousseau?  I’m going to have to pass on that.  Do we only think Rousseau is “good” because he says politically important things at a politically violent time or because his craft is good?  Daniel Defoe’s craft sucks, in my opinion.  But I think he’s an important writer, nonetheless, because he developed aspects of the novel (episodic writing, character) that have little to do with his ability to string words together in a sentence and make sure that his novels are logically consistent.  Whose to say Roberts isn’t saying politically important things of her own and that she won’t be studied 300 years down the line.  Or that the criteria of being studied 300 years on will have nothing to do with political statements, but will instead be focused on something else.  Because I think her craft is excellent.  And she has made technical and generic innovations in the romance.  Who deems the value of “importance”?

Victoria, it hasn’t been said here no but I have heard that sentiment expressed by readers (i.e. ‘We want to know *which* authors are judging. Do we find them top authors in the field or just middle-of-the-road?)

Re readers placing more emphasis on the emotional aspects of the book and not as much on the craft, could it not be that, in general, we’re not giving the author enough credit for *causing* that glow (through their craft)?

I don’t think so, although I agree with you and others who have indicated that this is the highest expression of “excellence” in the Romance genre.  Ideally, it is the craft that *delivers* the emotional impact. 

But IMO there is a tendency to do what I call “shorthand Romance” these days—to cue the reader with specific descriptions and types (i.e. flame red hair = feisty, dark craggy features = brooding hero), leaving it up to the reader to fill in the rest.  And quite a few readers, who have these incredible stores of generic information and emotional receptivity to Romance, cue very easily, IMO.  Lots of readers, IMO, don’t notice the difference, for example, between showing and telling because they are so open to receiving the emotional payoff in a Romance that they don’t realize they’re generating it themselves in many instances (I think this is especially a problem with ever-shrinking page and word counts). I sense that this may be especially true of readers who tend to gravitate toward the same sub-genre and type of Romance novel—that the vocabulary of those Romances is so much a part of their reading experience, that the reader can take on a portion of the craftsmanship responsibilities without even knowing or caring.  Please note that I’m not suggesting that these readers are mindless, stupid, ignorant, or possessing of bad taste—only that they are so schooled in the genre and so open to its promised emotional payoff that they automatically fill in whatever is absent from the book itself (or overlook, as the case may be, with poor sentence structure or massive copyediting problems, etc.).

Now I will *absolutely* grant that beyond all this there is a vast territory of taste and personal preference, and that I, for example, can wonder into the next millennium why that reviewer on AAR gave The Smoke Thief a D- (how could she not SEE the skill and FEEL the emotional power of that book?!), but the fact remains that I gave the book an A range grade and she gave it a D range grade.  So as everyone else is saying, I don’t expect any judging process to be anywhere near perfect. 

BUT, as Candy has argued, I absolutely, positively think that there are some things that can be discerned as good or poor on a pretty objective level, and unfortunately (IMO), the Romance culture, as a whole, has NOT made these elements of any fine book a part of the accepted and familiar community discourse.  And I think this is tied explicitly to the resistance to critique that still pervades the genre.  If we regularly talked about style and voice and quality of prose and all those other things more readily, IMO the *books* and the *reader response* would change, too (although I still think we would need to deal with publishers and editors and other industry players who have different agendas).  Now, whether the majority of authors want to see those changes is another question entirely.  I’m still trying to get over Penny Jordan’s bewilderment (as she commented recently on the new Harlequin Presents blog) as to why readers enjoy the “dominant heroine.”

Nora, you say what you want.  I dare say the Bitches could hobble along without your participation, but it always give me a thrill to read your comments, and I am—gasp—one of those unenlightened ones who’s not quite yours yet.

It’s like having George Clooney drop by and say hi.  Or Brad Pitt.  Or—crap, I’m a starfucker.

(i.e. ‘We want to know *which* authors are judging. Do we find them top authors in the field or just middle-of-the-road?)

Heehee. This makes me feel bad for the top authors in the field. I want them to have time to do other things. Like write!!! 

Regardless, someone would have to decide who is worthy and who isn’t. Who would that be? And then there’s the idea that judges should be random and anonymous and not walking around with a stamp of approval on their foreheads. And, again, there is the manpower issue.

I see a lot of Reader’s Choice awards I don’t agree with, but I don’t think to myself that they should find some better readers who know what the hell they’re talking about!

Is there an argument that being pubbed in romance isn’t enough of a qualification to judge? Because I don’t get that. We’re professionals in the industry. What other standard should there be?

I agree. Who else *could* you choose to judge? In most other professions, being judged ‘the best’ by your peers is usually considered a good thing.

Okay, I just have to say that I *heart* Melville, and I am definitely one of those who believes that he is virtually unsurpassed as a master of American fiction.  AND the guy info-dumped by the literary megaton. 

Laura:  if you hadn’t heard of Hawthorne until recently, have you heard of Margaret Fuller, one of his contemporaries (and a character in The Blithedale Romance)?  If you haven’t already, check her out—I think you will find her work and her life very interesting (she was one of the few “bonafied” female transcendentalists).

I hate Moby Dick.

There, I’ve said it. I even hated the movie, and I’d watch pretty much anything with Gregory Peck just to look at that amazingly sexy mouth of his.

Anyway.

What’s good, what’s not so good, what’s excellent and what’s mundane—even in craft—is very much up for all manner of debate. So again, judging is hard.

We do—certainly my circle of writer friends—routinely discuss style, voice, craft, technique in the books we read, within the genre and outside of it. Workshops at writers’ conferences are devoted to such elements of the process.

Do most—or forget that—would I discuss those areas regarding a particular book with readers, esp in a public forum? No, I wouldn’t. I’m not going to pick apart or critique another writer’s book in public. Some may consider that short-sighted or even weenie, that’s fine. I consider doing so tacky.

Readers are, obviously, free to do so. And I’m interested in the comments and discussions when they do. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don’t. But in this area I’m probably going to keep my opinion to myself.

Is there an argument that being pubbed in romance isn’t enough of a qualification to judge? Because I don’t get that. We’re professionals in the industry. What other standard should there be?

I agree. Who else *could* you choose to judge? In most other professions, being judged ‘the best’ by your peers is usually considered a good thing.

I don’t think that Dalia (was it Dalia?) was making that argument at all; I think she was saying that in her opinion there isn’t universal respect for Romance authors *per se*, but rather for some authors more than others, etc.  In other words, that for some people, author status isn’t enough (i.e. they want a “star” judging and not a mid-list author).  I haven’t heard those criticisms (I tend to think there’s WAY TOO MUCH over-personalization of Romance authors in general), so I can’t vouch for the accuracy of her comment, but I don’t think she was bringing into question the right of authors to judge the contest—if anything, I think she’s more willing to defer to authorial authority than some of us other folks! :)

Oh, I didn’t think Dalia believed that, just arguing with imaginary “Theys”. I always find They are the best people to argue with. *snicker*

This may be a strange question to ask on this site, but after reading the original post. . . Candy, I’m curious as to whether you consider yourself a “romance reader”, however you may define that. Or do you consider yourself a reader who loves the occassional romance, but it’s really not your genre?

I loves me some Robin Hobb, but I’m not a sci-fi/fantasy reader. In 2003 I devoured every book of hers I could find, but I was always wishing she’d get back to the romance sub-plot, and oooh, I would’ve loved to see those dragons doing the sexy-sexy.

Regardless of how you feel about the Rita *g*, I was intrigued that you said your tastes are more in sync with the average sci-fi reader.

I don’t think that Dalia (was it Dalia?) was making that argument at all; I think she was saying that in her opinion there isn’t universal respect for Romance authors *per se*, but rather for some authors more than others, etc.  In other words, that for some people, author status isn’t enough (i.e. they want a “star” judging and not a mid-list author).

I was just throwing in my two cents with Victoria on the concept, rather than rebutting a particular post.

And also like Victoria, I wouldn’t want those ‘star’ authors to have to judge by themselves; I want them to write! It would be too much to ask only a select set of authors to judge; there are just too many books in the contest (over 1000?).

The RITA is incorrectly compared to the OSCAR.  The industry equivalent would be the SAG.  Oscar voters represent 14 branches of interest from directors, executors, PR folks, and the actors.  The RITAs would need to include voting by editors, copy writers, artists, PR folks, booksellers, etc for it be equivalent so the underlying basis for the argument is fallacious.

This is a writer award that completely removes any participation from the reader which is necessary in order for the reader to find it relevant to her situation. I.e., there is so much more going on at the Oscars than just the awards and the awards happen live allowing the reader to believe that they are experiencing the event with the participants - that they themselves are participants. 

I plan on live blogging the RITA this year and maybe after several years of this, readers will find this an interesting and participatory event but there is nothing in the way in which it is run currently, from the nomination to the voting to the award ceremony that the reader can find personally relevant.

Further, it is apparent from some of the comments and from the blog article itself by Samuel, that the approval of one’s peers is paramount, even more so than the fans/readers.  The authors themselves make the award seem exclusive of the reader.  No award is more important than the RITA.  Which is fine.  But if that is the case, don’t expect the Readers to adopt that attitude just because the author does.  Essentially the rationale is that five authors like this book and so should you which is a weak rationale and as Candy pointed out, sounds very paternalistic as if a reader or a group of readers don’t have a clue as to what makes a good book.

As an industry award, it sounds like it isn’t even judged on any type of objective criteria making the award sound more like a popularity contest that some allege that it is. 

The categories and the reason behind the many categories seem pedantic to me.  Some people can’t judge a category on the same criteria as a full blow mass market and therefore there has to be a special award for the category novel so at to assist the judge in removing bias!

Heck, Crusie’s Anyone But You (and many other of her categories) and Kathleen O’Reilly’s Beyond Breathless could live up to any full length contemporary and the idea that these have to be judged separately is ridiculous. 

Did you see the inspirational category description?  It says it is an award for any religion or belief but does a Wiccan based novel ever win or would it?  Absolutely not.

How about Best Traditional Romance

Best Traditional Romance where the guidelines state that the stories “may include sexual tension and, within marriage, sexual fulfillment.”  Ms. Roberts stated that she could not include a mystery that was well written because there were no romantic elements.  Using the same adherence to the guidelines, if the book has sexual fulfillment outside of marriage, you have to grade it down, no matter how good the story is, right?

Ms. Crusie has it right in that this award is probably run just right for its purpose and that is to give an industry award.  But for readers to take it seriously, a serious overhaul would have to take place, opening up the voting to individuals beyond writers, making bookstores and librarians, maybe even the press, invest personally in the outcome. Making the categories more trim and not including the very silly requirements about when sexual tension and sexual fulfillment can or cannot appear in the story.

I can’t imagine that (in general) most romance readers know anything about the Rita. I don’t know anything about the Hugo or Nebula, who judges them, what the difference is, all I see is “Blah, blah, blah Award-Winner!”

The Rita is meaningful to the author because it is judged by her peers. It would also be meaningful to me because my books would then say, Rita Award Winning Author, and I have to assume that most readers would see Blah-Blah Award Winning Author and that would be super.

~Ms. Roberts stated that she could not include a mystery that was well written because there were no romantic elements.  Using the same adherence to the guidelines, if the book has sexual fulfillment outside of marriage, you have to grade it down, no matter how good the story is, right?~

First, you’d have to explain why I should include a cozy mystery, without any romance elements, in judging a romance novel contest. And I said the book was competent.

I wouldn’t grade down a Traditional for pre-marital sex, if the writer made it work within the storyline. Mostly, there isn’t premarital sex in a Traditional. Might some judges grade it down for that? I can’t say, but imo, they’d be wrong.

I’ve been out of the category end for a long time now, but back when, this area was for books like Silhouette Romance and Harlequin Romance, and the award category reflected the publisher guidelines. I don’t know if that’s changed.

I sincerely doubt—sincerely—that any Wiccan books have been entered in the Inspirational category. If they have, they certainly should, imo, be qualified and judged like any other in that category.

I agree with you that the SAG awards are a more realisitc comparison than the Oscars. As I said on RtB, if I use the Oscar comparison, it’s as a kind of short hand. Mostly people think: Oh, movies’ big night, when you say Oscar. Rita is RWA’s big night.

It is a peer award—I agree with you there, too. No argument from me. I don’t see any reason for readers to be invested in it. Interested, sure—depending on their interests.

Category books can be entered against single titles. That would be up to the entrant. In that they can and are (and have won) in categories against singles in romantic suspense, paranormal and so on.

Could the categories themselves be tuned up? Probably. They have been before, and probably will be again.

I think the live blog’s a wonderful idea.

Um, just to clarify, I see nothing wrong with entertainment in general or in books. Entertainment = good. And of course popularity does not necessarily indicate quality, but it doesn’t contraindicate it, either. I avoided the Simpsons for years because it was (a) popular and (b) annoying (all the Bart shirts…eek), but when I finally watched it I realized it was (c) good. Cold Comfort Farm (the movie, haven’t read the book yet) is entertainment. It’s good entertainment. It’s funny, intelligent, and answers that age old question we Americans have been asking for years, “Where the heck did hillbillies come from?”

No, “entertainment” does not equal “worthless” to me. Far from it. Or “we must not judge it.” I’ve followed Roger Ebert and recently Joe Bob Briggs because I think they do try to highlight quality movie entertainment. (They don’t always succeed, because they’re (a) male and (b) older than me.) I have been sure to share my opinions on bad entertainment (like On the Way to the Wedding -book- or The English Patient -movie-) with others.  I think we all can and should do better for entertainment than this stuff. (I know Julia Quinn can and does do better. I’ve read eight books of hers so far, and the other 7 all made B-grade at least.) Of course, that sometimes leads to arguments with those who, for no apparent reason, think that bad entertainment is good entertainment. And then we have to have a little “fireside chat” a la Dave Barry. “Could you think better if Ernst and Victor moved you even CLOSER to the fire?” :D

Also, I have the sudden urge to say that other than the Three Sisters Island trilogy, I don’t care for Nora Roberts’ work. Or Laurien Berenson’s at all. And Ernest Hemingway and Alistair McLean? Lousy, lousy, lousy. Don’t even mention Rick Copp, either. But worship Carol Lea Benjamin and Loretta Chase, for they art Goddess, or at least durn good authors.

We still think Nathaniel Hawthorne and George Eliot are fantastic
—But we think Jane Eyre sucks, because it does.

Sorry. I had to. The cover artist suckered me into reading Jenna Starborn, which just emphasized how much Jane Eyre sucked because everything that wasn’t Eyre-born was interesting and I wanted to know more about it, while everything that came from the original was stomach-turningly awful.

And don’t get me started on Billy Shakespeare, either, though I admit he’s far better in production as a play than as a read-only author.

Making the categories more trim and not including the very silly requirements about when sexual tension and sexual fulfillment can or cannot appear in the story.

Except those silly requirements are a direct reflection of what is required by the publishers of the various imprints, series, etc.  And which is why judging short series against long series against traditional series can be an apple/oranges/peaches comparison as they are all fruit, but they all have individual flavors based on what the publisher requires.

Same on the inspirational category.  Most inspirationals (as I said elsewhere) are published by CBA publishers, meaning you’re not going to have great numbers of anything beyond what the CBA will publish entered in the contest.  They are allowed; of course, they are.  But first they have to be published, which they are not in any significant numbers.

~essentially the rationale is that five authors like this book and so should you~

I just don’t want to go back and read the original column again, but if this was said, I disagree.

I do agree that for some of us it is The Award. And I do agree that this particular award isn’t about the readers. That doesn’t say, to me, that readers shouldn’t be interested. Nor does it say to me that readers should rush out and buy books nominated—or those that win. But if they were interested, they could use the list as a springboard to selecting something to read. Or not.

I can’t agree it’s a popularity contest. I’ve judged many, many times and popularity has never been a factor for me. I know others who’ve judged, and same goes. Does that mean none of the judges ever factor in popularity, or writers they like personally? I’m sure it doesn’t. But by and large I think most of us try.

The difference between ignorant and educated people is that the latter know more facts. But that has nothing to do with whether they are stupid or intelligent. The difference between stupid and intelligent people—and this is true whether or not they are well-educated—is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. They are not baffled by ambiguous or even contradictory situations—in fact, they expect them and are apt to become suspicious when things seem overly straightforward. - Neal Stephenson

Can I hear an AMEN!

Except those silly requirements are a direct reflection of what is required by the publishers of the various imprints, series, etc.

I wondered about that, Alison.  It’s strange to me, as a reader, that these guidelines are used in actual judging, because they feel to me more like *qualifying* criteria rather than part of a rubric for evaluation past the initial tier of judging.

I left this until the morning, so I could write coherently. Of course, the thread’s massively expanded overnight, and what I wanted to respond to is waaaaay up there now…

There’s another element in the self-selection by authors towards entering the “safe” books rather than what they might consider to be their best books. Note that the entry barrier includes more than the entry fee. The person entering the book is required to supply five copies of the book initially (and a further five copies if the book makes it to the final round. However, the rules also include:

“Electronic and audio books may be entered in the RITA contest. Such books must be presented in English, in print-book format produced by the publisher, complete with copyright page, in perfect or case binding, and printed on both sides of the page. “

Taken as it’s written, what that means is that any book published in electronic or audio format may only be entered if the publisher also produces a print edition. If it’s ebook or audio only, you’re out of luck. An author can’t do a print edition of the official ebook through Lulu and use that for the required hardcopies.

Now, it’s reasonable to expect hardcopy to be provided—not everyone wants to read off a screen, and not everyone even has the facilities to do so. But the way that rule is currently worded, it explicitly excludes any book that has been released only in electronic format. Remember that we’re talking here about books from RWA-recognised publishers, not just anyone who’s slapped together a website and a few pdfs.

Even if that’s just poor wording on the rules, and what is meant is “you will send us something that looks and handles like a published book, not an unbound manuscript”, it’s an additional cost barrier for individual authors. We get our author copies, but they’re in the format that the books are sold in. If I have to provide print copies of my ebooks, a book that was released in both print and ebook format is going to cost me just the shipping on a parcel of books. A book that was only released in ebook format will cost me another fifty dollars or so in getting the required print copies made.

Obviously I’m biased—I can’t help but be, being an epub author in a niche genre. But the way the rules are currently set up, yes, there’s an element of self-selection, and it’s stronger for some authors than authors.

~because they feel to me more like *qualifying* criteria rather than part of a rubric for evaluation past the initial tier of judging.~

I think this is precisely what they are. Criteria to guide the entrants, and for the initial judging.

It’s been a long while since I judged the finals, but I can’t remember ever getting a book at that stage that didn’t fit its category.

If, for instance, I’m judging the finalists in Traditional, and one of the books had the h/h having much hot sex outside of marriage, it would give me some pause. I’d think: How did this final in Traditional? I would also no doubt note that this book was—for instance—a Blaze, which wouldn’t be a Traditional.

I’d probably check with the contest coordinator to make sure there hadn’t been a mistake in the shipment to me. If not, I’d do my best to judge the book on its own merits, against the other finalists.

But, no question, it would throw me off.

It’s strange to me, as a reader, that these guidelines are used in actual judging, because they feel to me more like *qualifying* criteria rather than part of a rubric for evaluation past the initial tier of judging.

Robin - The argument a lot of judges make is that they can’t fairly judge a work if they’re not familiar with that particular subset of the genre, what it requires from a story, etc., and so prefer to judge only what they know.  If they don’t read paranormals or traditionals for pleasure, etc., then how do they know how to judge what they’ve received in their packets? 

(received59, heh)

Sarah F is correct in saying that Nora Roberts is a better writer than Rousseau.  His grammar and sentence structure, word choice and overly fulsome descriptions of nature were archaic even for his time!  (Don’t mind me, I’m cranky—I hated the whole century except for Voltaire and some of the libertarians.)  But that’s not what I said.  I said LaNora is the best storyteller.  I have read excellent writers whose story lines were not engaging.  I would rather be engaged than just watch the book go by. Nora writes interesting stories.  Oh, and I think some of the In Death did win a RITA or two.

Ack, you guys are bursting my bubble!  So many well-written and logical arguments on why the RITAs are flawed, irrelevant, why readers and booksellers don’t care about them.

But you know that little girl who practices thanking the Academy into her hairbrush?  That would be me, but for a RITA instead of an Oscar.  I’ve had a picture of the RITA statue on my fridge for years.  Go ahead, point and laugh. It’s okay.

I’ll be entering a book in the RITAs at the end of this year.  And if five random authors—-all of whom have different tastes and judging priorities—-were all to tap it as a really good book, it would be the highlight of my life.

So I’m curious…if readers respect the other genre’s awards, what kind of awards would romance readers respect?  Not RWA’s, not RT’s…so whose? 

A book that was only released in ebook format will cost me another fifty dollars or so in getting the required print copies made.

From what I understand, the bound print copy HAS to come directly from the publisher. (Presumably they’re worried about an author taking reviews/criticisms and changing it?) Most epubs aren’t set up to offer something like that, so it’s kind of a black hole. Unless they’ve changed it.

If, for instance, I’m judging the finalists in Traditional, and one of the books had the h/h having much hot sex outside of marriage, it would give me some pause.

and

The argument a lot of judges make is that they can’t fairly judge a work if they’re not familiar with that particular subset of the genre, what it requires from a story, etc., and so prefer to judge only what they know.

Now I am not trying to be difficult but you say this as if it makes perfect sense and it does, probably to all industry insiders, but to me it says that this contest lacks impartiality because a book can’t be judged just on a book.  I.e., how does a paranormal differ from a historical?  They don’t.  The world needs to be fully realized and consistent in order for the setting to work.

I can see judging a novella in a different category as long fiction because there are different types of skills in writing a short story.  and there is a difference between non fiction and fiction.  a difference between poetry and fiction. 

But I don’t see the difference between a Blaze and a Traditional in terms of whether the book is a quality written book.  If the judging is truly based on craft and other writerly things, shouldn’t “when” a couple has sex be irrelevant so long as it is organic to the story? 

And I don’t mean to devalue the award for authors.  I can completely understand how peer rated awards are very meaningful.  I am just speaking from a reader standpoint in response to Ms. Samuel’s post.  (btw - my below interpretation of the paternalistic message is my interpretation only).

how does a paranormal differ from a historical?  They don’t.  The world needs to be fully realized and consistent in order for the setting to work.

I totally agree.  For me, the argument is bogus, but it’s one many have used since the contest went to mixed panels of books - that they don’t want to judge erotic romance or paranormal romance or historical romance because they can’t tell if it’s a book that works in its sub-genre.  IMO, the question should be whether or not the book is well-written, well-crafted, engaging and compelling - even if it’s something I wouldn’t necessarily pick up to read.

From what I understand, the bound print copy HAS to come directly from the publisher. (Presumably they’re worried about an author taking reviews/criticisms and changing it?)

I’m afraid I have a rather more cynical view of the reason, not entirely unrelated to this:

Most epubs aren’t set up to offer something like that, so it’s kind of a black hole.

Yes, I am bitter and twisted, though for me it’s less of a personal issue—I write cross-genre, and I’m actually more interested on a personal level in the minutia of SFWA and WSFA rules about who is eligible for what. But it does bug me that an award that is supposed to be about promoting excellence in pro-published work excludes books from some RWA-recognised publishers.

Ah well. Over in my other genre, we have the politics about getting girl cooties all over the science fiction…

On the Inspirational Category:
The problem in the past is that we volunteered for the categories we were judging, so the published authors who volunteered to judge the inspirational category were inspirational authors who had not entered, and their idea of inspirational was “Christian content over story.”  Which I know because I judged that category one year and there was one book that was a great story and that also made me think about faith for the first time in a long time, and three others that were terrible but full of preaching.  I put the good story first but it must have gotten clobbered by the other judges because something vile won.

They’ve changed that.  One of the great reforms in Rita judging is that the first round is now random.  You get a span of books in any categories but the ones you’re entered in.  So writers outside the subgenre are judging the books, which means, I think, that they’re getting judged on how a good a story they are rather than on how well they fit or don’t fit the genre expectations.  And since there’s no point of comparison, books tend to be judged on their own merits and not compared to the others in the judging batch.  The final round is judged in one sub-genre and ranked, but the prelim set-up does just about everything it can to make judges look at the books as stories and not as examples of genre.

And it’s not a popularity contest. If anything, it’s the opposite.  I know some judges who will get down to the final two books and give the score to the author who’s less well know “because she needs it more.”  I think this is why Nora doesn’t win more often, although she must have fifty of the suckers by now. 

There’s not a lot more you can do when you need as many judges as RWA needs for this contest.  The judging instructions do NOT say to judge it on the merits of the genre; there’s a nine point scale with five being “average.”  You figure out on your own where on that scale the book falls.  They’re even letting you put 7.2 this year, although why is beyond me.  It makes me crazy figuring out where it goes in just one to nine.

I really think as far as judging goes, given the constraints of the contest (size and scope), the Rita’s are pretty well organized.  Where the contest needs fixed is the categories, many of which are practically archaic now.  We need an erotica category, we need a gay/lesbian category, we don’t need the varieties of contemporary and historical categories we have now.  I think. 

But I still want to know why the Rita doesn’t have the clout that awards in other genres that are judged with equal subjectivity do have.  I have friends in SF who tell me that the SF awards are such an old boys club that they only reward the traditional.  I have no idea if that’s true, but I know RWA isn’t the only award-giving organization that roils with conflict over their awards or whose choices are controversial.  So why don’t the Ritas mean anything to the outside world?

~I.e., how does a paranormal differ from a historical?~

Jane, if you were buying what you were lead to believe was a straight historical romance, and suddenly, there were vampires dancing at Almack’s, I believe it would give you pause.

It might be a wonderful book, one you ended up enjoying, but it would not be a straight historical romance.

In very much the same way you argued regarding labeling books without HEA as romance. It doesn’t mean the book’s not good, but it isn’t as advertised.

There MUST be criteria for the categories, or it’s a different contest. Every one who enters is given access to the criteria. And accepts it when they enter.

Traditional Romances are a different type of book than a Blaze, for instance. Different expectations, different style, different spoke on the wheel.

When I sat down to write a category romance, I certainly sat down to write the best quality book I could—but I knew I was on another spoke of the wheel then when I sat down to write a single title. If I’m going to write a paranormal romance, same goes.

It’s not a matter of one being more or less than the other, but of one being very different than the other.

And I’m just not going to judge a category such as Inspirationals. I don’t understand them on a pretty fundamental level. I didn’t enjoy the few I read. Could I, if I had to, judge an Inspirational strictly on its merits? I certainly could. But I don’t want to. So I—and the majority of judges, I believe—opt for the type of book we understand and enjoy.

And how would you, using Blaze again, judge an Inspirational against one? Why should you? Each has its place.

The structure of the Ritas showcases the diversity of the genre—and the best (agree or not) that the various areas of the genre have to offer.

And

how does a paranormal differ from a historical?

Am I living in some parallel universe where the Ritas are the only awards in the world that are given to different categories? Yes, there is a best picture award in the Oscars, but there is also best documentary, best comedy or musical (huh?), best animated feature, best foreign film. In the Grammys there is a song of the year, and there is also a best country song, best r&b song, best group song, best jazz, etc.  And hell if I’d want my country song judged by the jazz afficianados (even if that is what happens).

Seems to me the big difference is that there is not a ROMANCE OF THE YEAR!!! and 90% of people wouldn’t agree with the damn choice anyway, so what does it matter?

IMO, the question should be whether or not the book is well-written, well-crafted, engaging and compelling - even if it’s something I wouldn’t necessarily pick up to read.

I think this goes right back to what the award is and means to authors.  There are obviously some unspoken rules here about expectations for Romance books on the part of authors who feel that books need to be separated by subgenre, and I’m not saying they’re wrong, but they are limited.  They suggest that excellence in Romance is a somewhat narrow and conditional designation, and that craft as an overall consideration takes a backseat to generic expectations and guidelines.  Which, again, suggests that the meaning of the awards is to some degree based on the assumptions that drive the judging.  And if most authors share those assumptions, than the award is serving its designated purpose. 

At heart, I think this is another variation of that “what is Romance” issues.  Is the love story its essential and common element, or do different types of love stories have essential differences?  I don’t know what to make of the idea that authors of one subgenre don’t feel comfortable judging something they don’t regularly read or write.  On the one hand, I’m reassured in that authors want to be as objective and fair as possible, but on the other hand, am I to infer that the judgments are so strong between authors of different subgenres that their familiarity with the basic rules of the genre would not guarantee objectivity and fairness?

~Where the contest needs fixed is the categories, many of which are practically archaic now.  We need an erotica category, we need a gay/lesbian category, we don’t need the varieties of contemporary and historical categories we have now.  I think. ~

Yes. Absolutely agree. I would combine long and short contemp. I would keep Traditional as it is. Maybe Regency as well, seeing this as the traditional spoke of historical. I would combine long and short historical. I’d add a category for Erotic Romance, one for G&L (though I think it’ll be awhile before that one happens.)

Am I living in some parallel universe where the Ritas are the only awards in the world that are given to different categories? Yes, there is a best picture award in the Oscars, but there is also best documentary, best comedy or musical (huh?), best animated feature, best foreign film. In the Grammys there is a song of the year, and there is also a best country song, best r&b song, best group song, best jazz, etc.

But do only documentary film makers vote on best documentary?  Or do jazz musicians have the only say in who gets the grammy for best jazz album?

It might be a wonderful book, one you ended up enjoying, but it would not be a straight historical romance.

True, but if you are judging for a competition about a best book then shouldn’t the book be about the writing and not about the time period or place setting?

And for categories for the Oscars, there is no delineation between the best historical picture or the best contemporary picture of the best futuristic picture. It’s a contest for the actors, the screenwriters, the producers and directors and so forth, regardless of what place setting for the movie.  Which is still another reason why the Oscars are a bad comparison for the RITA (except in terms of importance to the recipient).

If the judges can’t put aside personal biases in judging then, imo, they shouldn’t judge.  To have such discrete segmented categories as there is suggests that RWA recognizes that it judges can’t be fair and tries to compensate for that.  I am arguing that an author knows about the craft of writing and when judging a book, shouldn’t the craft aspects take up the majority of the consideration?  In judging for a RITA, I do expect more out of authors than what an average reader responds to because isn’t that that argument?  That authors know better, because of their expertise, what a good book is.

As for new categories:

I suggest a category for best derivative of the Buffy verse.  And maybe there should be best vampire book, historical and contemporary.  Best werewolf book, with shifting sex and without shifting sex.  With and without barbs.

Best romantic suspense with a law enforcement official.

Best historical not set in the Regency time period. 

Best historical not featuring a titled member or anyone lower than an Earl. 

Best paranormal not featuring a mated fated pair. 

Best romantic suspense for

As for why the RITAs aren’t given more gravitas in the oustide world, I am sure that it is based on the fact that romance itself is a genre that is denigrated and viewed as a more menial and pedantic form of writing.

Did the Ritas start before or after the Romantic Times Reviewer Choice awards?  As I remember they were fragmented into loads of categories.  I am pretty sure that had something to do with advertizing since anything in Romantic Times used to be about making money—Bluegreen algae pills anyone?

Oh, my:  Just69

~True, but if you are judging for a competition about a best book then shouldn’t the book be about the writing and not about the time period or place setting?~

If the Rita was structured as a single award for best book of the year, then yes. It would need to work exactly that way. If it was structures as best book of the year and best novella of the year, you’d still be right.

But it’s a judging competition about the best book in its category for that year. You’re describing a different competition from the one that exists.

They did have best book of the year as a category for awhile. And books from all category could be nominated (by the membership at large, and voted on by same.)

There were problems with it, and they dropped it. I wish they hadn’t—had problems or dropped it.

I’m not absolutely sure I could put my biases aside for Inspirationals (and now I feel like I’m picking on them), so I don’t judge them. I don’t think that makes me a bad judge, or one who can’t be objective.

I believe the new categories you suggested might already be part of the RT awards. If not, they may be eventually.

I’m going to say again. One more time. Oscar-Rita. Shorthand. RWA’s big award. Academy’s big award. Both statues are gold and shiny. Both are peer-judged.

People get dressed up for both, and probably consume alcoholic beverages. There are parties after.

That’s about it as far as comparisons.

Okay, here’s a question:  could Laura Kinsale’s Flowers From the Storm be considered an inspy novel for RITA judging?  How about Gaffney’s To Love and To Cherish? 

I guess what I’m wondering is whether the categories reflect a desire to correct for judicial bias or to allow various subgenres some even ground for competition within an incredibly diverse genre.  Or both, maybe.  Or neither.

It seems that the RITAs are working for the romance industry in the manner in which they are intended - to give recognition for the diverse subgenres within the overall umbrella of romance. It is a contest judging the best book within a category.  If anything, it seems that the RITAs could do with a category reworking and maybe that will come in time.  Apparently there will be voting on this in July.

But reworking the categories won’t make it more relevant to readers.  I am not sure what will but I am thinking that readers have to be invested in it in some way - not necessarily voting in the contest - although maybe there is some way for the RWA to accept some type of fan voting (ie at the nomination stage).  All Star events do this - allow fan voting (v Hall of Fame voting which does not).

Essentially, aren’t we arguing about what would change Candy’s title (and every other romance reader blogger who has brought up this topic) to “WHY I CARE ABOUT THE RITAS?”

OK. So RITAs are an industry award, and as such are more valuable to the authors than to readers. No problem with that.

But then, I wonder, what awards ARE useful/important/helpful to readers? Any? None? Do awards that are reader-voted, like the annual poll at AAR,  make the award more reader-oriented and thus more meaningful? There are other contests, too—a reviewer’s choice award, the RT awards, numerous smaller contests (often run by RWA chapters) that are judged by booksellers. Do any of these make a bit of difference to a reader? I’m not talking about a difference as in ‘oh, this book won an award, it must be AWESOME!’ but more as in ‘this book won an award, I think I’ll check it out instead of this other book that didn’t win anything.’ Just curious…

Jane, I believe you summed it up perfectly.

But I don’t think readers need to be invested. I think they can choose to be, certainly, or they can choose to be interested enough to check out some of the books. Or they can ignore it completely.

I think, at its base, Barbara’s column was about giving readers information so they knew a bit more and could make that choice accordingly. Obviously, she’s enthusiastic about the Ritas and wanted to share that enthusiasm.

And, Robin, no, I wouldn’t think from the Inspirational criteria either of those books would fall into that category. I doubt if Laura would have considerered hers in that category—and as I know Pat very well, I can state without a single doubt, she wouldn’t have.

It really is, at the end of the day about choice. What we choose to read, to write, to be interested or invested in.

It’s amazing to me—in a good way—that readers would have enough interest, or at least enough to say about a topic like this—esp one headed Why I Don’t Care.

But then, I wonder, what awards ARE useful/important/helpful to readers? Any? None?

Wouldn’t this, like most anything else, depend entirely on the individual reader. No doubt, after reading this one column and the discussion following it, there are many individuals.

Really—and I’m saying this as someone who’s won lots of awards (Ritas and others), and who appreciates and values them all—why should an award influence a reader? Maybe, maybe to perk enough interest to check out the book. But, after that?

It’s all about the book itself, and that reader’s reaction to it.

Candy,

I think you said it all…RITA = Oscars.

Whenever the big hoopla about the Oscars starts, I always flip the channel.  The reason why?  The movies which I like and should be awarded NEVER are.  That’s because it’s all peer-judged and well, politics, politics, politics…  In fact, most of the time if a movie wins an Oscar, I avoid it like the black plague…unless it’s something exceptional (which is rare).  Because like you, I’ve found that if a movie has won an Oscar, I find it a complete disappointment.

Now, maybe I’m not that harsh with the RITAs because A. I’m a published author, and B. I’m a member of the RWA.  But aren’t the RITAs just peer-judged and all politics as well?  Now, if I were to when a RITA I certainly wouldn’t knock it, I mean, hey talk about great publicity, and you get to call yourself an “award winning” author. But really, I think the RITAs are more for the industry then for the public.  I mean, before I became a member of the RWA, I had seen it mention on Jo Beverley’s novels that she was a RITA recipient, but I didn’t know what that meant, and nor did I care.  I liked her books (and still do) and so I read them. 

In fact I have to admit, another “aspiring writer” veil was torn from my eyes when I went to submit my first book for a couple of Industry awards and found out you had to PAY to even enter…hmmm…doesn’t sound quite “kosher” does it?  But it’s only a small fee to cover postage, etc…still I would much prefer an award which is given for free, and your book is nominated by reviewers or readers, those are the truly important awards… 

Having said that, I still wouldn’t mind a RITA, but it’s just for the prestige more than anything…

And, Robin, no, I wouldn’t think from the Inspirational criteria either of those books would fall into that category. I doubt if Laura would have considerered hers in that category—and as I know Pat very well, I can state without a single doubt, she wouldn’t have.

I think your answer here sums up perfectly why this is very much an authors’ award and not a readers’ award:  I wasn’t even thinking about the fact that the author would be the one to make that call, I was only thinking about whether the book could be *considered* categorically appropriate.  Everything about this contest is authored by the authors, and if readers do happen to care about it, as Caroline Linden asked, it probably has little to do with the award itself and more to do with how much more visibility a book gets because of it.  And on how a reader is influenced by any number of promotional tools (direct or indirect).

IMO some readers *care* about the award even if they’re not invested in its yield because it gives us a chance to talk and kvetch more generally about books and about the culture of Romance.  If authors want readers to *respect* the RITA, it seems to me that’s an entirely different conversation—and perhaps a different contest. And FWIW, I think getting readers to respect the RITA is key to getting any kind of currency outside the genre, as well.  If that’s important to anyone, of course.  I don’t, actually, think that the RITA fails to get broad respect just because Romance doesn’t.  I think that’s part of it, but not the whole of it, especially when you consider the fact that Romance readers, in the main, are unbelievably genre loyal, and so few care about the RITA.

I do agree that for some of us it is Nora wrote:
” And I do agree that this particular award isn’t about the readers. That doesn’t say, to me, that readers shouldn’t be interested. Nor does it say to me that readers should rush out and buy books nominated—or those that win. But if they were interested, they could use the list as a springboard to selecting something to read. Or not. “

Which was my only point.  It’s a good way to get a list in hand of books you might like. 

Good to see the discussion. 

Barbara

I have to admit, I mostly ignore the RITAs - and the Edgars, and the Stokers, and the Hugos and Nebulas… I have fairly narrow and specific tastes, and am much more likely to look at book recommendations from people whose tastes I trust (or who are similar to mine) than I am at what wins awards. I mean it’s nice that Lois McMaster Bujold wins both Hugos and Nebulas, but I’d read her anyway.

On the other hand, I mostly inhabit the fringe areas of Romancelandia, with occasional forays into the Big City (this blog and a couple of others I follow). I used to read historical romances, but I got back into reading romances by way of SF => JD Robb books => other books by Nora Roberts => “if you like Nora, you might try…” recommendations.

(parenthetical note: both Nora Roberts *and* Jennifer Crusie posting here? see me do my immitation of a fangirl squee… )

-becca

How would I grade JR Ward versus Patricia Williamson (assuming they were competing for something)?  I can technically tell that Williamson has better craft, better technique (and I adored her The Outsider), but Ward really makes me feel warm and fuzzy in all sorts of nice places.  I don’t think I could “objectively” grade which book by these two authors are “better” because I would have a hard time knowing what to grade FOR.

It’s Penelope Williamson. Sorry, had to correct, she hits my RFG buttons.

By the way the RITA is judged, you would think it would be a self correcting level: the feeling vs craft.  And because it’s not I would think not because the judges have no uniform base of assessment?

I’m not an RWA member, so I have no clue, but that’s the understanding I have from the discussion.

I was going to post a lengthy comment, but then I realized I had more to say about the Golden Heart than the RITA.  So instead I made it into two blog entries (it kinda got lengthier as I warmed to my topic).  In case anyone is interested, the posts are here:

http://susanswilbanks.blogspot.com/2007/03/golden-heart-time-part-one.html

http://susanswilbanks.blogspot.com/2007/03/golden-heart-time-part-two.html

I’d planned a lengthy comment, but I realized I had much more to say about the Golden Heart than the RITA, so I blogged instead.  If anyone is interested, my posts are here:

http://susanswilbanks.blogspot.com/2007/03/golden-heart-time-part-one.html

http://susanswilbanks.blogspot.com/2007/03/golden-heart-time-part-two.html

So sorry for the double post—I didn’t think the original one had gone through at first.

I honestly don’t understand the objection to categories in the Ritas. I. Just. Don’t. Get. It.

I’ve personally been comparing the Ritas to both the Oscars and the Grammys, but it’s much more like a music award in this way: People listen to certain types of music. Hey, it’s all music, right? But the country fans aren’t looking for the big BIG winner of the night. They’re looking for the top country artists. They want to hear those songs and root them on and try those artists out if they win. THAT’S WHY THEY GIVE OUT AWARDS IN EACH CATEGORY!!!

Many, many, MANY romance fans are like this. Someone reads historicals. That’s it. End of story. They might want to read the award-winning historical. They definitely do NOT want the award-winning long contemp. You can put them all in the same category and mix them up if you feel some god-awful need, but the truth is that many readers (most?) don’t cross subgenres.

Yeah, Penelope Williamson.  Patricia Gaffney.  And “Janny” Cruisie.  ::sigh::  I should just stop now while I’m two behind.

And what’s RFG?  Obviously I should know, but my brain’s not working so good.

There are obviously some unspoken rules here about expectations for Romance books on the part of authors who feel that books need to be separated by subgenre, and I’m not saying they’re wrong, but they are limited.  They suggest that excellence in Romance is a somewhat narrow and conditional designation, and that craft as an overall consideration takes a backseat to generic expectations and guidelines.

...Which is precisely the problem I have with the RITAs and why I can’t use the lists of nominees/winners as guidelines for what books are considered the best of the genre. As a newcomer to Romance, some of these categories seem hopelessly narrow and arcane to me. Why have the Novella *and* Short Contemporary and Short Historical categories—how is a Novella different from a Short Contemporary? If a novel has “Strong Romantic Elements,” why isn’t it considered an actual, y’know, *Romance*?

Contrast these categories with those for The Edgar Awards, given in the mystery genre. They have more categories (16 to the RITAs’ 13), but they seem to be based on format, not generic conventions: Best Novel, Best First Novel (by an American writer), Short Story, Young Adult, etc. As a reader, the Edgars seem more straightforward to me, and less arcane, which is why I trust them more.

Also, I second (or third, or whatever) the idea that there need to be categories for both Gay/Lesbian and Erotic Romance, to reflect the expanding interests of Romance readers. It seems especially, what’s the phrase? Oh yeah: assy and judgmental to have an Inspirational category while excluding those two. I would also add a category for books published only in electronic format, and allow them to be judged in that format, because it seems unfair to make the epublishers provide hard copies of books solely for RITA judging.

I’ve personally been comparing the Ritas to both the Oscars and the Grammys, but it’s much more like a music award in this way: People listen to certain types of music. Hey, it’s all music, right? But the country fans aren’t looking for the big BIG winner of the night. They’re looking for the top country artists. They want to hear those songs and root them on and try those artists out if they win. THAT’S WHY THEY GIVE OUT AWARDS IN EACH CATEGORY!!!

Okay, just to play Devil’s Advocate here, the categories at the music awards may be more comparable to all the areas of *fiction* writing (or writing that includes fiction, non-fiction, poetry, drama, etc.).  Which is perhaps why the RITA, again, speaks its own language within the industry and not beyond.  A non-Romance reader has no use for the categorical distinctions in the RITA, and readers and authors *in* the genre seem to struggle with them, too. 

Given the size of the genre, I find it difficult to imagine not having *some* kind of categorization, if for no other reason than to give the broadest possible representation of authors the chance to compete.  Since it’s clear to me that the RITAs are most comfortably an author’s prize, this is essentially an issue over which authors should have dominion. 

As a reader, though, I pay like MINIMAL attention to sub-generic categorizations beyond noting them when I purchase or receive a book. And I love love love the hybridization that’s happening in the genre, as well.  But then I’ve always preferred interdisciplinary approaches for the most part.  I don’t see why Pam Rosenthal’s Slightest Provocation couldn’t be read against Shana Abe’s Smoke Thief or even, say, Sharon Shinn’s Archangel (except for the fact that they were written in different years, LOL!). OTOH, if authors aren’t comfortable doing this, then it wouldn’t be a great way to hand out an achievement award.  But every decision ultimately helps to define the limits and character of the genre, which, IMO, is where it gets interesting—at least to me.  Some folks are totally happy with the distinct sub-genres and some aren’t.  I don’t think it’s a value judgment, just a different orientation to the genre.

“They suggest that excellence in Romance is a somewhat narrow and conditional designation, and that craft as an overall consideration takes a backseat to generic expectations and guidelines.

...Which is precisely the problem I have with the RITAs and why I can’t use the lists of nominees/winners as guidelines for what books are considered the best of the genre.”

Craft does not take a backseat.  (Who establishes those standards, by the way? The male literary establishment who’ve decided that the (originally female) form of the novel should be less about emotions and more about ideas?  Of course not all RITA winners and finalists are going to meet exactly the same standard of excellence or voice or whatever the mood of the moment is.  But they are going to meet the mood of many readers who give them a shot.

“how is a Novella different from a Short Contemporary? If a novel has “Strong Romantic Elements,” why isn’t it considered an actual, y’know, *Romance*?”

A novella is a very specific kind of writing, as different from a novel as a short story.  It takes a different skill set to do it well (and no one can beat Anne Stuart, IMO—she’s just really good at it).  Specifially, short contemporary novels are about 55,000 words or so.  A novella is around 20-25,000.

Strong romantic elements was added to meet the growing pool of novels written about protaganists who might not follow a traditional romance journey (which tends to be a novel about a young woman meeting her mate). SRE allows more flexibility in judging mainly women’s fiction; i.e. books that are not necessarily traditional romances, but have a strong appeal to romance readers.  Chick lit works there, as well as older women exploring a second chapter in their lives, and action adventure novels, and relationship novels that examine a broader canvas of relationships.

I’d enthusiastically support the gay and erotic categories.  But then everyone would complain about yet more categories, wouldn’t they?

Can’t have it both ways.

I still get the feeling that a lot of readers responding here are suspicious of RWA standards and the RITAs in particular, and maybe not particularly familiar with genre standards.  Is that my imagination? 

If not, we’re getting a lot of outsider views of the genre, which will tend toward derision rather than a genuine embrace.  I’m all for criticism and discussion as long as the participants genuinely love the genre under discussion. 

Otherwise, why bother?

I still get the feeling that a lot of readers responding here are suspicious of RWA standards and the RITAs in particular, and maybe not particularly familiar with genre standards.  Is that my imagination?

Nope.  I don’t get the genre standards and I am suspicious of RWA and RITA standards if the effort is to get me to blindly adopt RWA/RITA’s version of what is good and wonderful in romance.  I’m not a person that adopts anything blindly.  I am a person who questions things. All things. 

If not, we’re getting a lot of outsider views of the genre, which will tend toward derision rather than a genuine embrace.

Am I an outsider?  I am not a writer.  I am a reader. Sometimes when I read posts by writers, I definitely feel like I am an outsider. 

I’m all for criticism and discussion as long as the participants genuinely love the genre under discussion.

What kind of credentials do I need to show that I love the genre. We readers need to pony up some type of credentialing in order to take part in this discussion?  I recognize almost everyone on this blog who has commented and they all are romance readers to varying degrees, even the authors as Ms. Roberts tries to point out now and again.

But your plea was for readers to take the RITAs more seriously.  And we have readers responding.  Simply because we don’t embrace the RITAs or we question the validity of it, we are somehow not true believers?  I’ve drunk the kool-aid. I admit to being on book crack.  What more is required?

Confirmation:  voice79.  I am a reader voice.

Craft does not take a backseat.  (Who establishes those standards, by the way? The male literary establishment who’ve decided that the (originally female) form of the novel should be less about emotions and more about ideas?

You know, the saddest, saddest thing about this comment is that if I hadn’t read a couple of your books, I would think, “wow, this is someone who really thinks very little of Romance.” Did I misinterpret your comment on RtB about how craft ideally delivers the emotional punch of the novel?  Because I made the same point in that thread, as well (here, too, BTW).

Anyway, I read the comments—all of them—on your RtB post, and more than one poster indicated that craft is either “plus points” in her judging or defined in a very narrow way (i.e. POV, grammar, etc.).  Shana Abe’s IMO MOST excellent novel, The Smoke Thief, got a D-—A D-!!!!!!!!—on AAR because even though the reviewer recognized that the book was well-written, it wasn’t “romantic” for her.  Let me say that again:  A D- (see, even after months I can’t get over it).  By contrast a Romance published by a VERY BIG house by an established author received an A-, when the book was so RIDDLED with copyediting errors, grammatical missteps and word choice errors (yes, errors, not unconventional choices) that I could hardly focus on the story, such as it was.  Not that long ago, an unpubbed author was IMO cruelly outed on the Internet because she dared criticize another author’s book on Amazon.  The editor of said book allegedly claimed she would never work with authors who did anything like that—even though IMO the “outers” were waaaaayyyyyy more dangerous to the welfare of the genre.  I guess it’s okay to represent authors who out and ridicule unpubbed authors, but it’s not okay to critique pubbed authors.  Man, that whole thing was ugly, and not one little bit informed by male anything, as those in question were all female.

IMO it’s a dark, dark day in the Romance community when you suggest that readers who think that the craft of writing is undervalued in Romance are “outsiders” to the genre and further construct it as some kind of patriarchal acquiescence.  Really, I can’t even be outraged because I’m just so . . . sad.

Can’t have it both ways.

Which is why I prefer the Edgar Awards categories, which are based on format (“Novel”) instead of generic convention (“Inspirational”). The Mystery Writers of America doesn’t differentiate between cozy mysteries and edgy mysteries when nominating books for Best Novel; why does RWA parse the Romance genre to such a high degree? It seems more like they’re coddling their membership (writers) than honoring the very best of the genre.

So if RWA is going to insist on a bazillion categories based on generic convention, then by all means keep adding categories like Gay/Lesbian and Erotic Romance, and I dunno, Best Book of 26,000-51,000 Words Featuring a Comical Dog, but then don’t be surprised when readers issue a collective shrug upon the release of the nominees and winners, because you’re not honoring the best of the Romance genre, you’re handing out awards to make people feel special, and that’s not a good criterion for my TBR pile.

If not, we’re getting a lot of outsider views of the genre, which will tend toward derision rather than a genuine embrace.  I’m all for criticism and discussion as long as the participants genuinely love the genre under discussion.

If I didn’t love Romance, I wouldn’t read it. The thing is, I read several subgenres within Romance, and I read extensively outside the genre (Science Fiction, Fantasy, Mystery, Thriller, Literary Fiction, Non-Fiction, etc.). I get the impression that RWA wants me to limit myself to just one genre (Romance) and ideally, just one subgenre so I’ll stay in my little corner and close my mind to other possibilities for the genre. Well, I refuse to become the literary equivalent of a hermit. If my open-mindedness is a problem for RWA, rest assured, I can get along without the organization—since I’m just a reader, I doubt they care about my RITA-related opinions, anyway.

Ah the RITAs, I have to bitch about that.  One year I bought books based on the RITAs and they were all stinkers, Now there is a comment from one of the judges that she decides based on her heart and her head.  Making that statement makes me doubt the RITAs even more.  The judges will then definitely skew it in favor of “friends” or “favs”.  I work in Quality and if you are really evaluating a product whatever it is, the heart is never used to make judgements.  That brings subjectiveness into the judgement so it is not impartial.  The product shold be judged on strict guidelines which is why the Nobel Prize has merit.  So until there are better guidelines as to how the RITAs are judged, I still won’t give it much merit. 

My word is mean13, yeah that is sufficiently BITCHY that I love it.

The product shold be judged on strict guidelines which is why the Nobel Prize has merit.

and

the heart is never used to make judgements.

Wow. Really? The Grammys too? Yikes. I wonder what the strict guidelines would look like. I’m almost speechless here. Okay, not quite. . .

If I’m reading a thriller should I set my heart rate aside and judge it based on the strictest literary guidelines? Should I not evaluate a romance based on how it makes me feel as WELL as craft? Is there something inherently wrong with books that make you feel yummy? I daresay that’s the purpose of a good romance, to make you feel yummy on one or many levels. That’s why I read ‘em anyway. Dreadfully hard to quantify.

Wow.

Okay, judging in a category in which your entered:

Sure, you can see that the entrant doesn’t judge her own book. But how many questions and comments just here have there been about judges’ objectivity? About politics? Popularity? Giving the edge to friends? How many more would there be if Author X won in her category, and also judged in it? It’s opening a sticky door that doesn’t need to be.

Not going into the read for the categories again except to say Romance is diverse. The Ritas celebrate that diversity.

I do wonder about the word politics in conjuction with the Rita. Where do people see this happening? And how? I’ve never served on a board or committee, so I don’t know how those inner politics work. But I’ve been entrant and judge, I’ve won and I haven’t won Ritas. Politics hasn’t played a part in my own experience.

I’m not saying they don’t play a part—but I don’t know of it. I’d like to hear about someone’s experience of politics in the Rita process.

The Man Booker award judges are “selected from the country’s [Ireland’s] finest critics, writers and academics”; the Pulitzers are judged by academics and editors; the Nobel literature award by the Swedish academy. These also carry cash awards and other perks.

Does the fact that the RITAs are judged solely by other authors diminish their importance to society in general? That the winners only get a statue and no cash? The fact that anyone can enter, so there is no impartial ‘nominating committee’ that chooses finalists? I’m not advocating for any of these things, or saying they’re wrong, just wondering what, if anything, could be done to give it more mainstream credibility and stature.

I just think it’s an absolute shame that the RITA, the ultimate prize in romance, leaves so many readers cold, to judge from the comments here. Without meaning to take away from the honor of winning, wouldn’t it be even better if a RITA did for a romance what an Oscar does for a film (greater publicity, renewed distribution, increased public interest)? It would surely help readers if they could regard RITA winners as, if not THE best (best being purely subjective), then certainly among the very best romances of the year. And I daresay it would make the RITA, already a major honor, even more meaningful to the authors who win.

Jenny Crusie: But I still want to know why the Rita doesn’t have the clout that awards in other genres that are judged with equal subjectivity do have.

Candy had a well thought out industry savvy answer here, but I have to say for me that until I became a member of RWA I didn’t even know the RITA existed.  Whereas I knew about the Hugo and Nebula awards because they put that nifty little gold star on the front cover of award winners.  I have no clue about the inside workings of the SF awards, and I honestly don’t care about them. It’s enough for me to know that some people love SF so much that they spend time judging new books and giving them awards.  That’s good enough for me.  I’m not always compelled to buy the gold starred books, but I do pick them up and check out the jacket copy.  It’s like the new and notable table at B&N or the shelf that says “Staff Picks.”  There’s so many damn books out there I can use the help. I’m afraid that the RITA problem is that simple… who outside the industry even knows it exists?  RITA winners need their publishers to put a little gold star on the cover of the book that says RITA winner.  People may not buy the sucker, but I’ll bet they would pick the book up and consider it… and they wouldn’t care that there are 14 different categories or want to know how judges are picked… they’d just be grateful that someone somewhere cares enough about romance to pick a few good ones they might want to try.

leaves so many readers cold, to judge from the comments here.

I’m not entirely sure you can count extremely vocal on-line posters as an accurate sampling. *g* I’ve not found that readers’ choice awards or, indeed, bestseller lists actually contradict from the Ritas.

Or “contradict the Ritas”. Ugh.

And what’s RFG?  Obviously I should know, but my brain’s not working so good.

Rabid Fan Girl.

No, I am fine with the RITAs, how they are judged, etc.  I was saying that in order for them to have more relevance outside the industry would be to have the judges be more inclusive.  I was also making further distinctions between the Oscars and the RITAs in terms of form, function, etc. 

But, as I stated earlier, the RITA as THE industry award for writers seems to be working fine.

Caroline: As far as I know, the Man Booker isn’t Irish, and the judges aren’t necessarily selected from Irish people, though they no doubt sometimes are. Where’d you get the idea that it was?

Oops, did I mess up? I got this from the Man Booker Prize website:

“...the prize aims to reward the best novel of the year written by a citizen of the Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland. The Man Booker judges are selected from the country’s finest critics, writers and academics to maintain the consistent excellence of the prize.”

So I guess I was wrong, it’s UK and Ireland. My bad. Sorry!

“I have no clue about the inside workings of the SF awards, and I honestly don’t care about them.”

Well, this is unfortunate.  Because I will tell you anyway.

The Nebulas come from SF authors, so they are no-never-mind to me.

But the Hugos come from members of the annual World Science Fiction Convention.

I go to this con almost every year, so I get a Hugo nomination form, and a ballot after the nominees are picked.

But here’s the deal:  I read very little SF and even less current stuff.  If I chose to vote (and I don’t)  I could pick names at random, based on no knowledge at all. 

But I pay approx $130 a year to go to the big Con, so I am now an authority on Science Fiction and can effect the winner of the Hugos.

But I don’t vote. 
Because it would be wrong. 
Because I don’t read enough.

But it would be perfectly legal if I wanted to.

And if you want to talk about confusing categories?  Please explain the difference between a short story a novella and a novelette.  Because the Hugo has all three of these.  They are arbitrary word counts, I think. 

And how about the year they added the “Semi-pro Zine” category because no one could ever beat the fanzine Locus, because it was too professional.  So it got it’s own category, and won that every year.

I am stumped as to why the RITAs are considered a less reliable judging system then this.  This is my first year entering, but I was in the Golden Heart competition for many years and got regularly stomped into the ground.

And then, I won.

Although I complained bitterly about “That Bitch that gives me a 4”, which happened several years in a row, I never seriously believed it was based on any kind of vendetta against me.  It was one opinion out of five, in a randomly chosen panel of judges.  It happens.

The winning and losing of the contest was based on the panel of judges I got each year.  When I got a set with likes, dislikes, sense of humor, and a skill set matching mine, I finaled.

I never got any sense that there was a secret society in Texas, making sure that my story lost because I was in the wrong chapter, had the wrong friends, or accidentally stole a chair from the reserved table of the RWA president at lunch, once.

It wasn’t always fun to lose, but I never felt it wasn’t fair.

I think, when we talk craft standards, and application of same, it is not as clear cut as you’d like to believe. 

When I read, I do not have a problem with writers who have a minimalist style.  Is no description bad craft?
How about purple prose? 
Point of View violations?
Copy editing?

(Because my book’s editing is different in two different editions.  There are some glaring typo errors in the US pb.  I swear to God, it was fine when I let go of it.  But do I deserve to be docked?)

Research?
Historical accuracy?  (I forgot to put a chemise on my heroine.  How many points do I lose?  Should I write my consession speech?)

Judging is subjective.  Always.  Even in contests where you get pages of craft feedback, and there are very clear cut craft specifications, you will get wildly different scores based on who the judges are.  One person’s wallbanger is another person’s ‘not that big a deal’. 

It is ever thus, even in other genres.

If the winners of an award happen to match your personal taste on a regular basis, it may not mean that the other awards aren’t valid.  It may be an indication of how your taste matches with the judges.

Christine Merrill
not getting a Pulitzer again this year…

Damned it I don’t feel pretty darn good about the Ritas right now. Good to know you don’t even have to have read the Hugo books to vote on them. Or nominate them, as far as I can tell from the rules. Daaaaaaaaamn.

If not, we’re getting a lot of outsider views of the genre, which will tend toward derision rather than a genuine embrace.  I’m all for criticism and discussion as long as the participants genuinely love the genre under discussion.

Urg, I love romance novels, but sometimes I wish I could strangle some of the people who read and write them because of the passive-aggressiveness. Yes, we are all reading and writing in a genre that gets no respect a la Rodney Dangerfield, but that doesn’t mean that we have to shelter ourselves and each other like penguins in a blizzard. Ladies (here and everywhere), duke it the hell out! We got to keep the edge on romance novels in the face of uncaring publishers, shrinking word counts, and the general lack of genre respect. I love this site because its the only place where I see a break from the constant, sometimes insincere tea party/love fest and that leads to interesting and intelligent discussions. Brawl like drunken sailors on shore leave! We’re all better for it if we get a few knocks to the head.

Congrats to RITA winners—breaking through beyond the other million entries is an accomplishment—, but it really seems like this is just a pat on the back for authors and its really nothing that readers should get excited about. Of course, congratulate our friends and the like, but nothing more.

Caroline, if it’s the Commonwealth & Ireland that’s a lot of other countries too: basically the Commonwealth is a federation of many of the countries that used to make up the British Empire. I think ‘Life of Pi’ was a Booker winner (won something, anyway) and that was by a Canadian author.

Not that it matters, just FYI.

“Good to know you don’t even have to have read the Hugo books to vote on them. Or nominate them, as far as I can tell from the rules.”

‘Tis a pity, we’ve missed the deadline of March 3rd.  Because I have 4 Hugo nomination ballots, right here in my office.  My entire family goes to Worldcon, and none of us vote.

So you could have helped me fill them in. We could have created our own little voting block, based on ignorance and favoritism.

Which we would not do, of course. 
Because that is not the way we roll, as romance writers.  Right Victoria? 

Christine Merrill

The Hugo length categories are indeed on word count, and are a bit arbitrary, but not as arbitrary as all that. A short story is a different beast to a novel, and requires different writing skills. It’s common for someone to be a good novel writer but useless at short stories, and vice versa. The same can be said of novelette and novella.  The exact word counts where the boundaries are drawn are a bit arbitrary, but *having* those categories is sensible.

The Hugo isn’t a reliable indicator of The Best Whatever that year—it’s a reflection of how many people knew about something, and could be bothered to vote for it. And the bitching and moaning that goes on about how the Hugos are broken because they didn’t produce the result that someone wanted—well, it makes this thread look incredibly restrained. But by and large, if something won a Hugo, then it’s almost certainly good, and almost certainly going to appeal to a lot of people. And as such can be used as an indicator of whether it’s worth reading.

How much the Hugos are used these days as a reading list, I’m not sure. There seems to have been a drift away from that. But one thing that strikes me is that at least in the past if something won a Hugo, then it was generally still in print and readily available by the time it won, and often had another print run with “Hugo winner” on the cover. It happens less now with the tendency for the chainstores to cycle the shelves on a monthly basis, but there was a time when people outside the group that did the voting could see in the bookshop that something had won a Hugo or Nebula.

I don’t think that brawling is all the drunken sailors do on shore leave.  Why leave off the naught bits?

I got this from the Man Booker Prize website:

So I guess I was wrong, it’s UK and Ireland. My bad. Sorry!

The Commonwealth is made up of 53 states, including the UK, India, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Pakistan.

Formerly known as the British Commonwealth of Nations, the Commonwealth is a loose association of former British colonies, dependencies and other territories - and Mozambique, which has no historical ties to Britain. (from the the BBC website)

The rules for submissions say that

UK publishers may enter up to two full-length novels for a specific year. In addition, any title by an author who has won the Booker Prize and any title by an author who has been shortlisted in the last ten years may be submitted. Publishers may also submit a list of up to five further titles for the judges’ consideration.

So if only books published in the UK can be considered, and each publisher is limited in the number of books they can submit that means there’s a lot of pre-selection going on even before the books reach the judges.

Because that is not the way we roll, as romance writers.  Right Victoria?

HAHAHAHA I’m picturing a whole line of us, walking through Worldcon in our A-line skirts and black sunglasses, the soundtrack from Resevoir Dogs blasting in the background. “Romance writers in the house, bitches!”

“A short story is a different beast to a novel, and requires different writing skills. It’s common for someone to be a good novel writer but useless at short stories, and vice versa. The same can be said of novelette and novella.”

And the same can be said of category length romance writers, vs. single title writers.  Which is why RITA has some of its more arcane categories.  You can do a more intricate plot, if you are writing a 100,000 word book vs. a 55,000 word book.

I’ve written a short historical.  But if you combine my category with the long historical category, will my plotting look simplistic by comparison? 

Note: the most appropriate category for my story, “Regency” disappeared this year.  Which means my polite, English characters will be taking on gun-toting cowboys and Roman gladiators, armed only with drawing room wit.  So it’s not as if there is a separate award for every posible type of romance.

Personally, I’m not caring too much about exact categories.  Do not ask me to sort this out.

But I think if Hugo is being held up as a good example (with 15 categories on my ballot) we need to recognize that they create categories, just like RWA does, in an effort to give a variety of formats a chance at an award.  The fact that they don’t separate the robots from the dragons doesn’t mean that they aren’t splitting a few hairs. 

Christine Merrill

Beth said: “I have no clue about the inside workings of the SF awards, and I honestly don’t care about them.”

Chrisitine said: “Well, this is unfortunate.  Because I will tell you anyway.”

No, no Christine… always up for hearing the inside scoop on how the awards are given… What I meant was that I don’t care about the inside workings as it applies to my habits when I’m in ‘search for a good book’ mode.  That is to say that it serves its purpose for me just the way it is.  “Here’s a pile of fifty books… look this one got a Hugo. Wonder what it’s about?”
Of course I’m interested in any good insider info you can dish for discussion and edification purposes and love that you’ve taken the time to fill me in.  Even so, I’m afraid that no matter how much everyone tells me about uninformed voter choices, weird categories and unfair politics… I’ll always be looking for a good book and industry awards, fairly chosen or not, are one way of wading through the myriads of offerings.

And what’s with the assertion that the novel was originally female form? Whuh? I’m about as ragingly feminist as they come, but I’m not fond of baseless revisionism. Evidence, please.

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that Aprha Behn was the original novelist.

IMO it’s a dark, dark day in the Romance community when you suggest that readers who think that the craft of writing is undervalued in Romance are “outsiders” to the genre and further construct it as some kind of patriarchal acquiescence.  Really, I can’t even be outraged because I’m just so . . . sad

Wow, I must have expressed myself very badly, because that is exactly the opposite of what I was trying to say. 

It drives me crazy when craft is dismissed.  There’s an assumption in some circles (readers and writers both) that giving attention to great craft means a book will somehow then lose emotional impact.

Craft is everything.  Craft is the way we get the stories into the world. Period.  It’s the only thing that matters in terms of writing excellence.  And I’m not even going to honor the silliness of “craft” = “boring”.  No.

I agree with you on Abe, FWIW.  Brilliant writer, one of the most elegant craftswomen we have.

Christine: And the same can be said of category length romance writers, vs. single title writers.  Which is why RITA has some of its more arcane categories.  You can do a more intricate plot, if you are writing a 100,000 word book vs. a 55,000 word book.

Well, I wasn’t one of the people saying “there are too many categories!”, and that’s a large part of why I wasn’t.

I think the variety of categories can be a problem, but from the point of view of the “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” problem of who judges a category. I wouldn’t volunteer to judge a good many of the RITA categories (in the RITAS or any other contest), because I don’t read them and wouldn’t have an earthly idea of whether a book worked on its own terms. I could judge general craft, yes; but each genre and sub-genre has its own genre conventions that may not be apparent to those who don’t read/write within it. To give an example at its most basic level: it can be a love story, it can be beautifully written—but if it doesn’t have an HEA, or at least a happy-for-now, is it a romance? But if I judge within a category I write myself, there will be suspicion that I am biased. Even if I don’t have anything entered myself, well, I have my likes and dislikes…

served37—is it just my filthy mind, or does this random word generator have a bias?

Hey, thats why I like this place. Its nice to get a mental slug to the face so hard that Jane Austen feels it by a chick that writes traditional regency romances. Writing that drawing room wit tends to make for a lovely point-y tongue to give you a good kick in the pants.

Interesting story: my friend and I went to New Jersey to visit her family. We had missed Fleet Week by two days, and I’ve never seen her so disappointed.

“Well, I wasn’t one of the people saying “there are too many categories!”, and that’s a large part of why I wasn’t.”

Point taken, Jules.  I was just piggy-backing off your example.

And there’d have been smileys after my post to you, Beth.  If I hadn’t just poured a coke in the keyboard.  It will not smile today.

But there is definitely a damned if you do, damned if you don’t quality to the whole judging process.  IMHO, it is approx fair, and unfixable beyond this point.

Let us design an imaginary contest where anyone can vote for Best Romance of the Year.

I enter, as a new writer with a Regency historical with limited American distribution.  (I’m not really traditional.  There is sex in 1806.  But some people don’t like me already becaue of the sex, and the missing chemise.)

I spent a portion of my promotions budget on the $40 entry free, and put the rest into cheap booze and lotto tickets, just like every other year.

To increase my chances of winning, I put I put strychnine in the Guacamole at the RWA national convention.

And damned if Nora Roberts didn’t eat in her room.

But Nora is having a bad year, and wrote her book while drinking cough syrup and typing with her feet.

Her distribution is wider than mine.  The audience for contemporaries is bigger.  Everyone knows Nora.  No one knows me.

If the voting is wide open, and there are limited categories, my cats vote against me.  My dog is checking his bowl before making a decision.

It is possible that I will write a book so vastly superior to Nora that I will win.

It is more likely that I will be beaten by Nora.  And Jenny Crusie, Barbara Samuels, and Lani Rich, post-humously.

If there are five randomly chosen judges, there is a chance that some of them read historicals, and are giving me an edge.

If I am only competing against historicals, I may be moving up the pack a little more.

But if there are no awards at all, or I am competing against every other romance in the world?

I went out of print already.  My chance to pitch this book was last year. Odds are you didn’t read it and are not voting for me.  Things are not looking good for the sequel, since you didn’t read the first one.

I am SOL. 

Do I, personally, think you should respect the RITAs?  Hell yes.

But it you have better luck finding books you enjoy by using RT, AAR or the Hugos?  Go with them and be happy.

I think all writers would prefer to be judged on content and not cover.  But if an award or a review proves helpful to reader or to a writer’s sales, once in a while?  That’s nice, too. 

Just saying.

Oh Lord, the history of the English novel in summary.  Let’s see how well I do.

Yes, people in France and Other Places in Europe were writing things that looked remarkably like “novels” in the 17thC.  But they were called “romances”—not in the way we mean them—and, as Candy says, much bitching and squabbling ensued trying to label the difference between romances and the new-fangled and dangerous novel.  actually pretty darned good about it.

Laura V., Candy touched on Catcher in the Rye’s “classic” qualification—that it was the first novel to explore teenagers as 1) something other than miniature adults and 2)capable of, well, angst. I don’t think it was all that great as a literary work either, but at least it was exploring new territory.

More preaching to the choir now…

CITR got a lot of heavy criticism and bad publicity because it was “obscene”—heck, it’s still banned today. But though that’s part of what led to its popularity, I daresay that if a woman had written it and (especially) it was about Harriet instead of Holden, it wouldn’t have “classic” status today. It probably would have gone the way of Kitty, by Rosamond Marshall. After all, aside from “only women” identifying with female protagonists. men boozing and screwing is life, fast and hard. Women boozing and screwing is smut.

to call it an “originally female” form is, as far as I know, inaccurate. Those in the audience (Sarah F? Laura V?) who know a hell of a lot more should feel free to sk00l me if I’m wrong in this

I’m glad Sarah’s already covered this from an English lit point of view. My area was medieval Castilian literature, so although out of solidarity with my Golden Age colleagues I’d stand up and defend Don Quijote‘s right to be considered one of the first, if not the first, European novel, I don’t know a huge amount about the development of the novel. If we’re talking about prose works, then there are the romances of chivalry and, in Spain, the late medieval sentimental romances, but they’re novella length and often include non-prose elements such as poetry and letters. Which doesn’t mean that they’re totally different from novels, because you can get epistolary novels. Anyway, those had male authors. There are also the picaresque novels. The Lazarillo de Tormes is possibly a bit short to count as a novel, but it’s earlier than Don Quijote. Other picaresque novels which are longer include Mateo Alemán’s Guzmán de Alfarache and Francisco de Quevedo’s El buscón. The Guzmán de Alfarache is long, and was published before Don Quijote, so I suppose it might have a good claim to being one of the first European novels too.

However, hundreds of years before the first European novels there are the Japanese The Tale of Genji and The Pillow Book of Sei Shonagon, which were written by women, and also Chinese novels.

I found a power point presentation about the history of the novel here,  which is (a) brief (b) gives useful dates and summaries and (c) includes further links to online resources.

At my private non-denominational research university in Chicago, we were taught that the first novel (not in English, obvs) was The Tale of Genji in the 11th C.  Which was written by one or maybe two women.  But unlike SarahF, I am not a literature professor, so this is just what I was taught, many years ago.

Christine, your book may be out of print, but eHarlequin claims to have sent me a copy.  Had I read your comments here before I ordered it, I would have bought several more and handed them out to friends.

“you’re not being handed a list of every SF/F book published last year. What’s the selection process behind THAT?”

That’s just it.  There is no selection process.

The nominating ballot I am holding is the vetting process, before the real ballot.  There are five blank lines after each category.

I can write whatever I want on them, as long as the work came out in 2006.  There is no list of all the SF/F of 2006, no requirements as to publisher to weed out vanity presses, and no way that voters have read it all, so we are allowed to pick whatever we want, and hope that the best books make the top 5.

So if I published a science ficiton book in my garage and handed it out on a street corner, there is nothing to prevent me from nominating myself.  But 4 votes wouldn’t get me on the Hugo final ballot.

But If I had enough time and an axe to grind,  there is nothing to prevent me from lobbying for more votes.

I’m not a big name fan, or anything.  But I’ve been going to Worldcon almost every year since 1980.  I must have some friends.  I could probably find 20 people who thought it was funny to mess up the voting.  And 20 more who felt the Hugo nomination process needed revamping and wanted to prove the point.

I now have a voting block of 40.

The membership in any given year is around 6,000, but less than 20% tend to vote.  I need my book to make the top five.  Can I do it with 40? 

I don’t know.  But I can make a dent.  And go looking for more friends.  And somewhere in this house, I have previous year’s voting stats, so I can figure out how many people I need on my team.

But I wouldn’t. 
It would be wrong. 

As I said before, I don’t vote because I am ignorant of the subject matter about 95% of the time.

But when I was young, sweet and impressionable, and used to vote?

We would get together in a group to do it.  And I would vote as I was advised to by my friends.

And sometimes, it ended up that I had friends on the Hugo ballot.

Amazing. 

The fact that the Hugos consistantly turn out some really good books says a lot for the taste and care of the people who do most of the voting, and their love of the subject matter. 

But the system is not foolproof.  The potential to turn it into a popularity contest exists.

Re the sf/f awards-some authors feel that the Hugo is “better” because is is a large cross-section of the entire spec fic community that votes on it-fans,agents,editors,publishers-everybody. The Nebulas are seen as “broken” by many writers due to the odd eligibility problem and some other things. Also,the only people who can vote on the Nebulas are writers who are active members of SFWA in good standing-which is by no means everyone.
  Also,I disagree with ther “arbitrary wordcount”-those are established literary conventions-and it prevents us from comparing apples to oranges.
      As far as popularity contests go,look at this past year. Probably the most “popular” book was A Feast for Crows by Georger R.R. Martin. it was the biggest seller of the novel nominees,George has a large fanbase,etc. The winner of best novel was a much lesser selling book by a Canadian author. For that matter,at the last Canadian worldcon,best novel went to a British writer living in America.
    All these awards will constantly have accusations of popularity contests etc. However,I haven’t seen much effect of campaigning on the winners.
  I think the RITAs’ problems stem from various sources,including all the categories-some of them seem moribund. Maybe RWA should consider a different system,maybe not. On the whole, I must admit that winnign a RITA means very little to me in terms of wheteher or not I want to read the book.

I admit up front that I read narrowly (pretty much just historical romances set in 19th c. Britain, classics and literary fiction), and despite being a fairly serious English lit major once upon a time, I am nowhere near as well read (in romance or any other form of literature) as many of you who post here.  By way of excuse I will note that I live in a Bermuda triangle of work, small children and attempts to make progress on my own WIP.  (Yes, yes, I hear the collective groan.  I am yet another unpublished hanger-on here in the Bitchery.)

Because I have a pittance of free time for pleasure reading, I don’t bother even trying to get my hands on a book unless I have a reason to think it will be good.  So, in an effort to improve my chances of that happening, I look at who has won the RITAs.  I also look at a lot of other resources like online romance reviewers (unbelievable, I know, given the context) and the recommendations of people who post their Top-10 Faves on Amazon under those often bizarre-o headings.  I check out what the authors I like are reading, and I ask my uncloseted romance-reading friends what they have enjoyed.  I also listen to what the blue-haired lady at the Book Rack (my destination for out-of-print backlists) recommends.  Then I take it all with a grain of salt.

I feel like I’ve had pretty good success with RITA winners.  I read Susan Kay Law’s A Wanted Man solely on the basis that it won a RITA in 2005, and I liked it even though I’m not usually into American settings.  I kept that book, and I don’t keep anything that I don’t expect to re-read or loan to a friend as a recommended read.  The same thing is true for Patricia Ryan’s Silken Threads, which won a RITA a few years earlier.  I enjoyed her medieval spin on Rear Window, despite the fact that I’m really not into medievals. Even Julie Garwood’s.

I also tried to read Laura Kinsale’s Shadowheart on the basis of its RITA win, but then I got to the part where the heroine bites the hero’s man-titty.  (NB:  She’s not a vampire.)  I’m more of a tit-licker type myself, so despite the book being well written I put it down and never picked it up again.  Have I dismissed the RITAs because of this experience?  No.  I just moved on and looked for something else to read.

I’ve enjoyed many historicals written by RITA winners.  I agree with the comment here that in some cases authors have not received this award for their strongest work.  But overall, having read the complete backlists of quite a number of these authors, I find like the body of their work despite the blemishes.

In looking back over the list of winners in the historical categories, I am admittedly disappointed to see that some very worthy authors are simply missing.  (Is my “Find” function broken or can it possibly be that neither Mary Balogh nor Patricia Gaffney has ever won RITA?)  But putting aside the much-explored shortcomings of the RITAs, I think it is important to point out here that the winner’s circle includes a number of what I consider to be exceptional historical romances.  These are my “keepers,” the books that I’ve read and re-read and have loaned out under the penalty of death if they were to go astray.  (These happen to be: Lord of Scoundrels (Chase), My Dearest Enemy (Brockway) and The Proposition (Ivory).)  Maybe I grade on a softer curve than Candy and Sarah, but I think that these are some trashy novels a smart bitch can be proud of.

And Don Quixote just has the claim of being the first *modern* novel.  IIRC, the first Classical novel was Metamorphosis, AKA The Golden Ass, by Apuleius, which also includes the first known version of the story of Eros and Psyche.  (Which I’m almost certain Cervantes read when he was trying to figure out the whole “novel” thing.  Tons of side narratives, chapters of people telling other people stories, and a guy who gets in a fight with a wineskin?)

I think the point being made about the Hugos is that the RITA was accused (here) of being a popularity contest. It seems to me you can’t get much more impartial than NOT judging a category your books are in, judging anonymously, having no control over WHICH books you receive, and oh here’s a great concept, reading ALL THE BOOKS you’re supposed to vote on before you place your score.

Whereas somebody voting for the Hugos could cast votes for the only three books they read that year, or cast votes for the authors they’ve loved before even if they haven’t read the book, or cast votes for their friends.

I assume the RITAs are scored the same way as the Golden Heart. Read the book. Give it a score on a range from 1 to 9. Five being “average” for a published romance in the category. Nine being an exceptional, outstanding read. Write it on the scoresheet that should have come with your books. That’s it, ya’ll. Kind of the exact same way readers might rate something in their head after they read it. “Eh, that was average”. “Shit, that sucked balls.” or “Ohmigod, I just had a religious experience.” or even, “I would’ve given it a nine if the craft had been better, but I’m giving it a seven.”

Okay, I’m done. I swear.

It’s all flailing around and writing in titles and assigning numbers. Sigh.

LOL Yeah, that sounds about right.

And if anyone wants to read a wonderful, witty, backstabbing sort of mystery about a group of English literati trying to award a literary prize as their numbers are diminished by murder—check out Ruth Dudley Edwards’ Carnage on the Committee.  Better yet, get the audiobook. The narrator is very good.

Edwards by the way is an English conservative and I am a raving liberal but I still love the way she skewers literary politics.

Wow, I must have expressed myself very badly, because that is exactly the opposite of what I was trying to say.

I really appreciate the clarification.

As you can tell, I’m more than a little sensitive to the “outsider” rhetoric, because I’ve encountered if for the three years I’ve been reading Romance.  And lest you think I’m a lightweight, I’ve read *hundreds* of Romances in that time, routinely spending upwards of 20 dollars or more for out of print Romances and tracking down books from the 80s on.  And interestingly, I found myself identifying very much with Candy’s description of herself as a reader (although I juggle different percentages of genres and writing disciplines than she) as someone who continues to seek out Romance despite a persistent and annoying pattern of disappointment.  I know what great Romance can be, I guess, and I’m hungry for feeling nourished in both head and heart. And I am passionate about wanting to support a women-centered, women-produced genre.

But sometimes I really wonder whether Romance is a true woman’s community, either as authors or readers.  So much Romance itself seems to be centered around the hero rather than the heroine.  Then there’s the issue of the fan v. the reader, and while these categories can certainly overlap, I think Romance may be more comfortable with the accommodating fan than the critical reader.  Then there are the cries of disloyalty every time someone dares suggest that the genre isn’t okay (much like those self-esteem builder you referenced in your RtB post).  And, of course, the ugly middle school cafeteria crap we see online periodically. 

That there are wonderful things about the genre is evident in every glowing book review and book recommendation from reader to reader, as well, IMO, as the kind of rigorous discussions that go on here and a couple other places online.  What I like about here is that there seems to be an understanding that anyone spending this much time talking about Romance has to have a close relationship to the genre—an insider relationship, as I would call it (because I’m not the kind of reader who wants to write Romance or who thinks that only authors are insiders). 

But as to generic limitations, definitions, etc., that they are opaque or “suspect” to some of us doesn’t mean we are “outsiders”—it sometimes just means that the freaking things are opaque—or at the very least that we recognize the uniquely politicized nature of Romance genre boundaries (Romance = one man, one woman, for example).  But that sort of makes them more opaque in certain ways, IMO, because Romance seems so intrinsically loaded with all sorts of value judgments that settle right along the generic boundary lines.  And I kind of think it’s a good thing to be vigilant about patrolling those boundaries, especially when it comes time to talk about the best of the genre and how that is determined.  Because ultimately it’s the “best” and the “worst” of the genre that defines it, and god knows we spend enough time seeing the worst.  But when you spend as much time as some of us do seeking out fresh, innovative, well-crafted, compelling, and emotionally powerful Romances, the “best” is a topic of great interest and interrogation, IMO.

And let me just apologize for the heinous typos and grammatical violations in that last post.  10 hours of school and a brutal (ha ha) debate on torture techniques did me in today.

Re. the history of the novel. So much of it has been covered, but I just wanted to add that Behn was primarily a dramatist, and the reason this is important, IMO, is because there are many, many texts that exist, some of which have been referenced here, that could compete for the “first novel”—if we could separate generic forms from the specific cultural forces that help produce and shape them.  And IMO we can’t.  The novel as we know it today really has a very specific cultural lineage, and while there were some early pioneers in novel-like prose, the *form* of the novel itself is really an 18th century invention, written, even its early days, by both men and women.  I think this is akin to saying that Pride and Prejudice is a genre Romance, when it existed before genre Romance even came into consciousness as a *form* of the novel.  People may identify P&P as a Romance, and I do so myself, but technically speaking it’s not formally identifiable as such within the reality of literary history.  At least in terms of how I’ve learned about it over the years.

Hey! I won Best Book of the Year for Born In Ice in ‘95. Why doesn’t RWA have that listed on their site?

Those bitches.

Just saying.

Yes, I wish they’d bring that back. There were problems, those problems should be addressed and fixed. But it wouldn’t be simple. First problem being they didn’t get a lot of nominated books from the membership. They all but begged for them, and there was considerable—I take it—lack of interest. I recall they even put a post-paid postcard in RWR so all the member had to do was fill in a favorite book, membership number, name, send it back. They did try.

So the solution would be to somehow get the membership off its collective ass to send in their favorite book, then to vote for their choice of the top ten selected.

I vote. I will not join a committee, will not run for office, but am thrilled to vote for those who will.

I don’t understand the low turnouts either, in any kind of election. I especially object to those who can’t be bothered to vote bitching about leadership or policies. If you voted, bitch away. If not, shut up.

I’ve been out of commission with a nasty virus which has taken my entire house out, and I miss this. What, Candy, you couldn’t have waited for me? What’s wrong with you, girl?

Candy said:
I’m waiting for other Bitchery regulars who’ve won RITAs like Lani Diane Rich to come over and smack me into next week for impugning the honor of the majority of RITA winners, because they think I’m talking about their entire body of work instead of specific books. Le sigh. (Lani, I haven’t read Time Off for Good Behavior yet, either.)

Oh, babe, I totally would have!!! But see above re: nasty virus. Nora has taken care of things quite nicely, though. Go, Nora!

And get off your candy-ass and go read my book. Then you’ll be up to eleven out of fifty-one, and that sounds a lot better. ;)

Arin Rhys wrote:
These sort of discussions about the Romance world kind of make me glad that I write lesbian romance and therefore have no chance of ever winning one of these contests.

I got two words for you, babe: Brokeback Mountain. Stay in the game. Things change.

Nora wrote:
My books aren’t everyone’s cuppa. But one day, Candy, one day the scales will fall from your eyes, and you will be mine.

If you don’t love her for her books, people, you gotta love her for just being Nora. Damn, I adore that chick.

Jenny wrote:
But if we want to make the best effort we can to reward all the different genres in RWA, the breadth of the industry, if they’re for us, not for increasing sales, then what we’ve got is probably our best system.  And I think that’s what they were designed for, for our party, not for commercial purposes.

And there’s the heart of it - the purpose of the Rita. I think the categories need a revamp, but the function is actually pretty good. It does what it’s intended to do. Winning a Rita doesn’t get you more money, but it’s nice. And they have heft. I pity the poor bastard who tries to break into Nora’s house. ;)

Candy wrote:
You know, I’m feeling like committing to do doing something fairly insane, like reading all of the RITA winners, because the scientist in me wants to see how the RITA works in terms of my curve, and exactly how often they award prizes to good books vs. books we like.

Well, honey, the scientist in you can’t be objective, and for it to be scientific, you’d have to be. So it would be a big, fat waste of your time. All you’ve discovered here is that your taste matches Rita judge’s taste about 10 in 50 times. (11 in 51 after you’ve read my book.) But, smart as you are, that’s just you, babe. The books I’ve read that have won I’ve found to be pretty worthy for the most part, although there are some fabulous books I’ve read that haven’t won as well. I just don’t think it’s possible to work a contest to fit to your particular appreciation of quality, which seems to be what you’re asking. Even with your Rejar/Untie My Heart thing, you’re still expecting the Rita to match your estimation of which is the “better” book, even if it’s not the book you thought was more engaging, which means your value of “better” may not match mine.

(That said, I read Untie My Heart, and really liked it. So it wins on both counts for me. I haven’t read Rejar, but I’m pretty sure it’s not my cuppa. Just clarifying that those are your examples, not mine.)

Plus, we’re romance writers. We’re emotional. We read and vote with our hearts, and I think the book that speaks to our hearts is likely going to win over a more skillfully executed book. I’m not sure there’s anything wrong with that. This is a genre about passion and heart, and that’s part of the reason why I like hanging with these people. For me, when it comes down to skillful execution vs. story, I’ll pick story - as long as the execution isn’t baaaaaaad. Baaaaaaad execution will kick me out of a book, no matter how good the story might have been. But if the execution is just maybe not as skilled? Then story wins, hands down, because story matters more to me. I come to a book to be drawn in to a community of characters, a place, a story, and as long as I can believe in those things, I’m in. Now that’s me. It may not be you. And neither one of us is going to find all the Ritas fitting our taste, but I’m not sure that says anything’s really wrong with the Ritas as a whole. I think it’s just the way taste works.

Okay, this is running long, and I’m still weak from the flu, so I apologize if I’ve repeated arguments already made. I had energy to give my opinion at the beginning of this whole thing; right now, I need a nap!

Plus, we’re romance writers. We’re emotional. We read and vote with our hearts, and I think the book that speaks to our hearts is likely going to win over a more skillfully executed book.

This sounds a little like Brenda Coulter’s “Romance authors are more sensitive” thesis from a while back, but I don’t know if you meant it that way.  In any case, I think you’ve summed up why I believe neither the RITAs or Romance in general engages much mainstream interest or respect.  NOT because there’s anything lesser about speaking to the heart or emotional books—or about women’s writing, in general.  But because in such an enormous field like Romance, there’s less sense of *need* for skilled writing as fundamental to the popularity of a book (among both readers and authors, although clearly not uniformly).  Plus, IMO, there exists a built-in hostility to literary fiction that feeds a false belief that skill inevitably competes with emotional power (how about Beloved, or The Time Traveler’s Wife or The Shipping News, which has the added bonus of a happy ending, along with Black Silk, For My Lady’s Heart, To Have and To Hold, Tom and Sharon Curtis’s old Regencies).  And with books being churned out so fast, and in such volume, the prophecy becomes somewhat self-fulfilling.  NOT that there aren’t incredibly skilled writers in Romance, but the books that have crossed over haven’t been able to take the genre *as a whole* with them.

Here’s a theory: SF has a well-documented and widely-acknowledged fear of girl cooties. I think Romance suffers from a variant.

Which is ironic, because one of the complaints is that women’s fiction is devalued, thus the marginalization of Romance.  Yet women fare sooooooooooooo much better in lit fic, both in getting published and in getting recognized.  I guess people could argue that women have simply joined the old boys’ club, but that’s simply not true.  There’s a point beyond all the analysis I can generate on this issue where I. just. don’t. get. it.  Where I want to start screaming and swearing and shaking down all those “it’s only entertainment” or “you’re acting like an English professor” (well, duh to that one) comments.  Because IMO they’re so much more insulting to the genre than expecting a book to be adequately copyedited.  Which leads me to a point I forgot to make before: I think publishers encourage lesser quality in books by undervaluing authors, over-working editors, and failing to see publishing Romance as different than producing, say, Cadbury Mini Eggs (which are sitting next to my computer, thus the reference).

What I am hearing from Robin and Candy is that for the RITAs to have more significance would be to raise the level of the romance authorship higher than it currently is.  With the number of books published, the time in which authors get to spend on their books being shortened (by half at least), the push to publish creates a lowering of the bar, so to speak. 

Ultimately, only a small percentage of romance books actually are well crafted.  But because we romance readers are so well trained in recognizing when we should feel things; what we should feel at certain times; etc from our many years of reading, that the lack of craft isn’t so noticeable to us, but it is clearly noticeable outside the genre.

Thus is you pick randomly at a romance book, then you are likely to pick up a badly crafted book and assume that the entire genre is a low craft genre even though the cream of the crop - the to 10% are equal in craft to any lit fic book/mystery or sci fi.

To argue it another way, if lit fic/mystery/sci fi were published in the same astounding numbers as romance, the ratio of dross to gold would be equal.  However, because the lit fic/mystery/sci fi are published in smaller numbers, have lower budgets, etc., the editors et al are more careful in their choices and production meaning that the current ratio of dross to gold leans heavily in their favor and against romance.

Is this what I am hearing?

Robin wrote:
This sounds a little like Brenda Coulter’s “Romance authors are more sensitive” thesis from a while back, but I don’t know if you meant it that way.

Oh, hell, no. If I remember correctly - and correct me if I’m wrong - Brenda was saying that people shouldn’t give negative reviews to romance authors because they’re more sensitive. Which is just crazy. If the book blows chunks, it blows chunks. The reviewer owes you nothing.

NOT because there’s anything lesser about speaking to the heart or emotional books—or about women’s writing, in general.  But because in such an enormous field like Romance, there’s less sense of *need* for skilled writing as fundamental to the popularity of a book (among both readers and authors, although clearly not uniformly).

Well, I disagree. I think romance gets no respect because it’s girls talking about girl stuff, and you know there’s going to be a happy ending, so obviously they can’t be hard to write, and there’s no skill involved. Which is totally wrong. I don’t think there’s any less of a need for skilled writing in romance, and I think there are just as many dogs in literary fiction, percentage-wise, as there are in romance. I think romance gets no respect because the old school literary establishment was run by a bunch of people with penises…. oh hell. I just went on for four paragraphs on that which I deleted because that’s not really what we’re talking about. It’s a whole ‘nother discussion.

But what I was talking about was the judging. And how romance writers are emotional. I know I’m wrangling a broad brush on this, but I’ll stand by it. I mean, if you’re not looking for emotional payout, why are you writing romance? Or reading it? The same way you look to be scared in the horror genre. So, when a romance author reads a romance, she wants to be swept away emotionally, and I think will judge based on what the book does for her emotionally, rather than necessarily the “skill” involved.

And let me clarify more - I put skill in quotes for a real reason. I have basic expectations from a book - a handle on grammar, good dialogue, characters I can get behind, a conflict I can respect. If you’ve got those things, and your craft is good enough to keep me engaged in the story, but maybe not as good as someone who kept me less engaged, then, IMO, the better book is the one that kept me. For me, that’s where the real skill is at. I’m a very blue-collar writer. I go in, I get my job done, and I get out. I don’t describe things unless I think they’re important, and I don’t talk about stuff that doesn’t matter to the story. I end up skimming so much of what I read because I want story, and I’m given a detailed description of a rolltop desk. The more I have to skim, the harder the book hits the wall. So, for me, true skill and craft is about keeping the reader in the story, however you do it. I find some others have a different yardstick, and that’s okay. I’m talking about me.

So, when I’m talking about skill vs. “skill” I’m talking about the very real, very difficult, and very crafty need to keep the reader emotionally engaged in the story vs. the ability to skillfully describe a butterfly dancing on the wind. If the butterfly serves your story, great. If not, it’s just so much literary wanking, which is where good craft goes bad. So a lot of this discussion hinges on my definition of “skill,” which I think varies even more when you bring literary fiction expectations into the mix.

Plus, IMO, there exists a built-in hostility to literary fiction that feeds a false belief that skill inevitably competes with emotional power

Hmmm. I don’t believe the two are mutually exclusive. I’ve read a lot of emotionally powerful books that are also really well-written. What I was saying is that if you keep me in the story, I’ll forgive minor violations of craft. The Harry Potter series comes to mind. I don’t think anyone will argue that JK Rowling’s prose is anything to write home about, but damn, the woman can spin a yarn. That’s where I’m coming from. I’m in it for the yarn.

And now I have an odd urge to knit…

Candy wrote:
I think Romance suffers from a variant. I’m not sure what to call it. Litfic cooties? I can understand why the backlash exists, because God knows the literati has been dogging on romance for a long time, but its fear has resulted in some of the more exasperating elements of the romance community, like its allergy to criticism, a tendency to dismiss craft concerns with “Well, it’s all due to taste, one person’s treasure is another person’s trash” and a prose-vs.-heart dichotomy.

I don’t see an allergy to criticism in romance. I see a lack of truly intelligent, honest reviewers. There are a lot of review sites out there that never give less than 4 stars. That’s crazy. And it’s not because authors are whining; nobody cares when we whine, trust me. Maybe it’s because we’re (mostly) girls and we don’t want to be mean? I have no idea. But no one’s saying honest reviewers can’t do their job. These reviewers might get backlash for their unflattering reviews, but I don’t think any more than any other genre. Loads of authors think they’re above reproach, and not all of them write romance.

And I don’t dismiss craft concerns, so much as I think that a good story matters more, and in the end, the better book for me is the one that keeps me engaged. You can’t keep me engaged if your craft sucks, it has to be good, but does it have to be all buttery? No.

Nor do I think that “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure” is an argument worthy of dismissal. It’s true. There’s no one yardstick by which to measure a quality book. There are books that I think are awful which other people enjoyed, and you know what? God bless. Go to it. Have your Bridges of Madison County and eat it, too. Life’s too short.

Craft is important. It’s very important, and ignore it to your peril. But once your craft is good enough, story is what makes the book. Of course, this argument separates story from craft, which is a faulty place to jump from because good story is part of overall good craft. I guess my argument is that the better book for you is the one that engaged you more, and one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. It’s just true.

But some trash is just trash. :)

With the number of books published, the time in which authors get to spend on their books being shortened (by half at least), the push to publish creates a lowering of the bar, so to speak.

Thus is you pick randomly at a romance book, then you are likely to pick up a badly crafted book and assume that the entire genre is a low craft genre even though the cream of the crop - the to 10% are equal in craft to any lit fic book/mystery or sci fi.

Yes, except that I don’t think readers miss the craft stuff so much as they overlook or look beyond it without letting it drag them down.  But in general, yes.

If I remember correctly - and correct me if I’m wrong - Brenda was saying that people shouldn’t give negative reviews to romance authors because they’re more sensitive.

Actually what she was saying was that only peers (i.e. other authors) are able to truly evaluate Romance novels because Romance authors are more sensitive and only other authors understand, well whatever it is they’re supposed to understand.  I can see how your argument, as you continue to spin it out, is different from hers, despite the appeal to the “Romance authors are emotional” argument you have (to which I’d be interested in seeing other authors respond).

As to your opinions on lit fic and on the general acceptance of Romance, if it’s all about a denial of women writing about women’s stuff, then why are romantic comedies sooooooo popular in film form?  Why did The Piano win 3 Oscars and why was it nominated for best picture?  Why did Alan Ball go back on his promise to leave television in order to turn Charlaine Harris’s Southern Vampire series into an HBO series (although Anna Paquin as Sookie is an outrage)?  Why is Oprah so successful?

The longer I read Romance and participate in the online community, the less convinced I am that Romance’s exclusion is a dismissal of women’s issues.  The less I’m convinced it has anything to do with the literati or with patriarchy.  Because I don’t give a crap whether men respect the genre or academics as a rule.  But many of my friends are not college educated and THEY won’t read Romance, despite being very very oriented toward women’s issues and movies about women’s issues.  I have a number of friends who are much more girly than I am, much more sentimental, too, who only like happy endings, and who won’t touch Romance with a ten foot pole. 

I don’t think the mainstream women who reject Romance do so because it’s about women—or because they’re AT ALL influenced by the “literati” (whoever they are, anyway).  And inside the Romance community?  OMG there is some ugly shit that goes on, from women to other women.  And there’s still the vestiges of Fabio and clinch covers and all sorts of things INSIDE the genre that I think have a way more negative influence on how the genre is perceived.  And add on to that the so many of the books aren’t well crafted, I can see the marginalization. 

Romance is sort of a paradigm, generically speaking, and once people get into the paradigm it makes sense and certain things are understood.  I KNOW I make compromises when I read Romance for the sake of other things (although I don’t think I’ve ever come across a book that’s flawlessly executed and boring to me, which is sort of interesting).  But getting people into the paradigm is a different thing, and that’s where I think Romance can be its own worst enemy.  I made the shift because I was fortunate enough to get a detailed list of books to start with—Gaffney, Kinsale, Ivory, Tom and Sharon Curtis, etc.  I don’t think anyone who reads Romance doesn’t want the emotional punch, the compelling story.  But I still don’t buy that “good story” is any more universally agreed upon than “romantic” or “sensual” or “emotionally satisfying.”  But I do think there are some elements of craft—beyond good grammar and coherent writing—that are more objectively identifiable in a judging situation. That’s why I like the rubric anonymous was talking about.  It may not change the winners, but it *may* change the way books move through the judging process and the way they’re read as part of that process.  NOT because judges don’t notice all these things, but because there’s a difference between breaking them down in the scoring and assigning one final grade, and that difference, in the aggregate, might change things significantly for a lot of books.

The romance community is very good at fostering close, almost claustrophobic ties; it’s almost like we’re huddled in the trenches at the Maginot line, and we’re all “Lookit, the Big Bad World is nasty enough, so why be mean to each other?” There’s a lot of pressure to be nice, nice, nice, and it by no means comes solely from authors.

I can’t remember where I saw it, but one of the PBR women said that they still receive strong comments (most in email form) about the type of reviewing they do.  AAR apparently still gets author ire, as well.  And I think as we’ve all seen, that pressure to be nice ultimately results in a lot of not nice stuff, often in the guise of chastising those who aren’t supposedly being nice.  After a while, I lose track of who’s supposed to be the “nice” one in a lot of these scuffles.  In my job, I deal with a lot of “hate speech” issues, and it never ceases to amaze me when people who are offended by someone else’s speech basically threaten and insult you (as well as the offending party) as a way to try to get you to do something about it (because free speech should only be free for some people, ya know).

Robin wrote:
As to your opinions on lit fic and on the general acceptance of Romance, if it’s all about a denial of women writing about women’s stuff, then why are romantic comedies sooooooo popular in film form?  Why did The Piano win 3 Oscars and why was it nominated for best picture?  Why did Alan Ball go back on his promise to leave television in order to turn Charlaine Harris’s Southern Vampire series into an HBO series (although Anna Paquin as Sookie is an outrage)?  Why is Oprah so successful?

Romantic comedies are not typically blockbusters. They’re cheap to make, and they’re good date movies, so they’re a staple, but very rarely does one win an Oscar. As a matter of fact, I can’t think of a romantic comedy in recent years that was so much as nominated. I could be wrong, but I’m drawing a blank at the moment.

If The Piano were a book, it would be literary, not romance.

And Oprah is extremely powerful and wealthy, but mocked and marginalized by “sophisticated and intelligent” circles as much as romance is.

Is your argument that anyone with success who has a vagina invalidates the literati-marginalizing-women argument? I’m not sure I follow. And none of this applies anyway because they’re not books, except the Charlaine Harris thing, but television has been traditionally marginalized as well, and is not mainstream literati. We’re talking about romance novels being marginalized in literary circles because they’re girly, and they guarantee a happy ending. Which was my argument and I still stand by it.

The longer I read Romance and participate in the online community, the less convinced I am that Romance’s exclusion is a dismissal of women’s issues. The less I’m convinced it has anything to do with the literati or with patriarchy.

I’m not sure that’s what I said. The literati loves women being raped, murdered, beaten, etc. Hell, Oprah’s even a fan of that stuff. But female community, where women can celebrate girl stuff and have a happy ending? Not so much. I’ll buy your argument to a point. I mean, horror’s a guy thing and it’s been typically marginalized as well, but romance is very much bottom of the barrel, and I think a lot of that has to do with a long tradition of men deciding what’s quality and what’s not. I could be wrong. I often am. But this is where my thinking is right now.

Because I don’t give a crap whether men respect the genre or academics as a rule.  But many of my friends are not college educated and THEY won’t read Romance, despite being very very oriented toward women’s issues and movies about women’s issues. I have a number of friends who are much more girly than I am, much more sentimental, too, who only like happy endings, and who won’t touch Romance with a ten foot pole.

This speaks to the idea that romance is being marginalized by the mainstream - otherwise, your friends would read a romance book before dismissing the genre as a whole - but doesn’t support your argument as to why, that the marginalization doesn’t have to do with the books being girly. I don’t follow your point here; all this supports is the marginalization, which is what we agree on.

I don’t think the mainstream women who reject Romance do so because it’s about women—or because they’re AT ALL influenced by the “literati” (whoever they are, anyway).

Then why are they rejecting the books out of hand without reading some first?

And inside the Romance community?  OMG there is some ugly shit that goes on, from women to other women.

No argument there. Still has nothing to do with the why of it all.

And there’s still the vestiges of Fabio and clinch covers and all sorts of things INSIDE the genre that I think have a way more negative influence on how the genre is perceived.  And add on to that the so many of the books aren’t well crafted, I can see the marginalization.

Oh, honey, I’m with you on the covers. Unfortunately, that’s a marketing-vs.-taste issue. Those stupid clinch covers sell books, so it’s a necessary evil on the business end. Although I’m seeing loads less of them now than in times past. Here’s hoping they’re dead for good.

And, sure, there are a lot of dogs in romance, but I’d argue there are as many in other genres. So why do the dogs in romance count more against the perception of our genre more than the others? There are only two big differences; we sell more, and we’re girls.

I don’t think anyone who reads Romance doesn’t want the emotional punch, the compelling story.  But I still don’t buy that “good story” is any more universally agreed upon than “romantic” or “sensual” or “emotionally satisfying.”

Which brings us full circle back to the fact that any judging is going to be influenced by that person’s perception of these values, and will not be a total match for anyone. I liked anonymous’s suggestion, too; I think a detailed score sheet could help the judges maybe think a little more about the scores they give before they give them.

I think the pressure to be nice comes alot from the authors.  Mean girls, anyone?  Mrs. Giggles, for the longest time, was held up to be reviled by authors and the romance community.

Let me say another thing that bothers me immensely and leads to a further denigration of the genre and that is the covers and then the subsequent promotion of things like Mr. Romance and the “hot men” of the day.  To me, that sort of thing panders mercilessly toward the idea that the genre is smut filled.

Frankly if all the covers of my husband’s novels were with scantily clad women, I would have some question as to the content and validity of the content too.

Oh, honey, I’m with you on the covers. Unfortunately, that’s a marketing-vs.-taste issue. Those stupid clinch covers sell books, so it’s a necessary evil on the business end. Although I’m seeing loads less of them now than in times past. Here’s hoping they’re dead for good.

They are not and here’s why.  In this age of increasing hybridization of romances with other genres (paranormal, erotic), the only way a reader can trust that a romance is a romance is by the cover.  I have yet to pick up a man titty book and not find a romance.  A cover with a shoe? A quilt? A woman?  A feather?  could be anything inside there.

I have to rely on the covers I hate the most because of the publishers increasing attempts to mislead me in my purchases.  (am I still bitter about cameron dean series?  Oh yeah).

But I still dislike seeing on the web and other places *cough* RT Convention *cough* the celebration of the man titty going hand in hand with the celebration of romance books.

Candy wrote:
I’m certainly not referring solely to the select few authors who are all “Wah wah wah, you gave me a bad score!” There are the rabid fangirls to take into account, too, but mostly, it’s the huuuuge number of readers and reviewers who subscribe to the “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all” policy.

Well, here’s the thing. In the same way that authors are supposed to sit back and take it when their books get trashed, reviewers who prize their ability to say what they think need to be able to handle the backlash as well. You and Sarah do that; lots of others just can’t handle it, so they waste their time making smiley faces about books they don’t like. I used to review theater, and I got shit for my stuff all the time. But I sucked it up because I had a job to do. So again, I say, the onus is on the reviewers to take what they dish out.

That’s onus. Not anus. Read it again.

Dirty mind.

Although, really, any author out there who argues with a reviewer is misguided to say the least. You can’t argue with an opinion, and all ink is good ink, so even if you hate my book, you’re doing me a favor by giving me the time of day. I’m not saying it doesn’t sting, I’m just saying a glass of wine and stepping away from the computer takes the sting out.

No, but I do think there are more-or-less objective markers for books that are good, regardless of whether we like them. I’ve used all sorts of analogies, from food to other books, to no avail, so I won’t harp on that point again. *crowd breathes sigh of relief*

Okay, so you’re saying that 40 of the 50 Rita-winning books you read didn’t even make your more-or-less objective markers? Really? If that’s the case, then maybe your more-or-less objective markers aren’t as objective as you might think. I have pretty high standards for books I consider quality. They don’t have to be perfect on all counts, but they have to live up to the standard. And, despite what it may sound like here, my standards are pretty high. Ask the poor bitches who’ve gotten critiques from me. I’m not a pushover when it comes to craft, trust me, and I’m not saying a few dogs won’t slip by and win a Rita. It happens. But forty out of fifty? I haven’t read as many Rita winners as you, but the ones I’ve read, I’ve understood why they won.

I’m not trying to argue that everyone should LIKE the better-crafted book if it wasn’t to their taste. I’m trying to make a case that people should make more of an attempt to acknowledge that these books are skillfully, even masterfully crafted, even if they weren’t the Bestest Squishiest Thing Evar.

You know, I’m doing a lot of devil’s advocating here because I’m sick and cranky, but I do get your points about understanding basic quality. I just think it’s more subjective than you do. And, when it comes to books that have reached Rita-winner level, this is where I’m saying that good story wins over buttery prose. I’m assuming that they’ve got basic craft on their side, because the one’s I’ve read have. Maybe that’s where we’re butting heads.

Hmmm, good point. I’ll have to ponder this a bit more, though, because REALLY good craft can make clunky storylines work, and really good stories (or stories that push certain buttons of mine) can cover all sorts of craft wonkiness.

See, this is where I disagree. Really good craft and bad story means nothing to me. But if the story’s bad, then the only “really good craft” they can have comes down to buttery prose and delectable description, which I don’t value so much. And a really good story will only cover up so much basic craft wonkiness, but - for me - to a much greater extent than good craft, bad story.

And again, I’m separating story from craft, which is wrong, wrong, wrong.

And the fact is, like most arguments, if we argue it enough, we’ll end up realizing we actually agree.

~Hmmm, good point. I’ll have to ponder this a bit more, though, because REALLY good craft can make clunky storylines work, and really good stories (or stories that push certain buttons of mine) can cover all sorts of craft wonkiness. ~

True. Both ways are true.

But I think there’s a difference between the craft and the technical. If using the rules someone listed for judging that were heavy on technical merit, but the hero was sleezy—the judge, the reader was put off by the hero and his actions, felt sorry for the heroine stuck with him, etc, the book is a failure to me.

A technically perfect book doesn’t equal a good book to me. Craft must build a story (hopefully with good techical skills) that engages the reader. If it’s a romance, shouldn’t the reader be involved with the romantic development, rather than thinking: Run away, heroine, run!

I’m not talking about personal quirks here. (My asshole ex-boyfriend was a blond who liked Pop Tarts, ergo blond hero who eats Pop Tarts is a sleezebag like my ex.) I mean legitimate actions and character traits that equal sleeze.

Craft builds and sculpts the story, the layers of it, whole of it, and technical skills are the nuts and bolts that hold that story together.

I’d enjoy more—and rate a book higher—if it was a lovely, engaging creation, with a few loose screws than I would a sound creation that lacked appeal at the core.

(PS. I don’t think I dare look closely at the Cartland covers tonight. By eyes are already blown.)

Well, here’s the thing. In the same way that authors are supposed to sit back and take it when their books get trashed, reviewers who prize their ability to say what they think need to be able to handle the backlash as well.

Right, but it’s supposed to be about the book, and not anything personal. But the “backlash” is often personal as in what Ann Vremont did with Karen Scott.  Or in calling a reviewer a “mean girl.” That’s not ad hominem?  If I said an author was dumb or stupid or that my big toe could write better prose, that would be enough to send people for the munitions tent. 

Author or fangirl saying that about a reviewer?  Fair game.

Jane wrote:
Let me say another thing that bothers me immensely and leads to a further denigration of the genre and that is the covers and then the subsequent promotion of things like Mr. Romance and the “hot men” of the day.  To me, that sort of thing panders mercilessly toward the idea that the genre is smut filled.

Hallelujah, pumpkin. I never understood all that, and to be honest, it kind of creeps me out.

I have to rely on the covers I hate the most because of the publishers increasing attempts to mislead me in my purchases.  (am I still bitter about cameron dean series?  Oh yeah).

I swear, I’m not snarking, but that’s why they’ve got back cover copy. I write back cover copy for romances, and my job is to play up the romance angle. Plus, if it’s in the romance section… I’m not familiar with the Cameron Dean series, so I’m not qualified to comment on that, but I think the vast majority of novels that are sold as romances in the romance section are actual romances, man-titty or no. I can see getting burned once or twice, but enough to justify all that man-titty? Dear God, I hope not.

Candy wrote:
OK, can we all take a moment and savor the PURE VITRIOLIC AWESOME that is Mrs. Giggles?

And another hallelujah. She’s only reviewed me once, and she wasn’t a fan, and I don’t share her taste, but damn if she isn’t fun to read. And she says what she thinks, which I love.

~To me, that sort of thing panders mercilessly toward the idea that the genre is smut filled.~

Oh yeah, howdy.

But it’s not going to stop (Mr. Romance type stuff) until authors stop participating. If readers want to, that’s fine for them. But if authors participate in stuff like this, they’ve got no leg to cry on re perception other than their own.

I swear, I’m not snarking, but that’s why they’ve got back cover copy. I write back cover copy for romances, and my job is to play up the romance angle. Plus, if it’s in the romance section… I’m not familiar with the Cameron Dean series, so I’m not qualified to comment on that, but I think the vast majority of novels that are sold as romances in the romance section are actual romances, man-titty or no.

Maybe for historicals but for erotic “romances” and paranormals, the trends seems to be this idea that you can write a book that may have a happy ever after 10 books down the road (or may not) or even kill off a main character and slap the romance label on it.  Read the customer reviews for Cameron Dean’s Luscious Cravings which I think is the third in the series on Amazon.

Suzanne Forster’s Harlequin Spice back cover copy read like a romance.  It was not.  Aphrodisia’s editors came out and said that they were looking for erotic books but that they didn’t need to fit the traditional HEA.  So yeah, romance hybridization seems like it is gaining steam.

Jane wrote:
Right, but it’s supposed to be about the book, and not anything personal. But the “backlash” is often personal as in what Ann Vremont did with Karen Scott.  Or in calling a reviewer a “mean girl.” That’s not ad hominem?  If I said an author was dumb or stupid or that my big toe could write better prose, that would be enough to send people for the munitions tent. 

Author or fangirl saying that about a reviewer?  Fair game.

No. It’s really not.

Look, it’s not right, any more than the vicious, personal book reviews (which also happen) are right. I’m saying that if you’re going to put stuff out there, author or reviewer, you have to be ready to handle what results, even if it’s CRAZY RABID FANGIRLS. ALL CAPS. If you’re gonna be honest, you’re gonna piss people off. How you handle it from that point on is up to you. And if you’re honest, even if I don’t agree with your taste, I have no argument with you. It’s the ones who make nice to everyone because they can’t handle not being “nice” that are wasting everyone’s time.